PRIVATE BUSINESS

Crossrail Bill

Ordered,
	That S.O. 209(1) of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business (time for delivery notices, etc.) shall have effect in relation to the deposit of Petitions in connection with the Crossrail Bill on or before 16th September 2005 as if on a day on which the House does not sit deposit were required to be made between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m..—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Algeria

Ian Lucas: what recent assessment he has made of levels of political violence in Algeria.

Douglas Alexander: Political violence in Algeria has decreased significantly since the 1990s, and few incidents have been reported in major cities, including Algiers, within the past two to three years. However, incidents continue to occur in mainly rural areas. The United Kingdom Government are continuing to monitor the situation. We advise British citizens to consult our travel advice before going overseas, regardless of the country that they are planning to visit.

Ian Lucas: In the past three years, a company in my constituency, Conren Ltd, has taken extensive steps to trade in Algeria, where it has successfully promoted the sale of its flooring products. In its opinion, violence has decreased in recent years. Does the Minister think that Algeria is now a safe place for British industry to do business?

Douglas Alexander: I am delighted to hear about that successful business in my hon. Friend's constituency. A number of British businesses are now trading successfully in Algeria. The larger businesses include BP, GlaxoSmithKline and Unilever, and UK Trade and Investment reports that other British businesses are increasingly taking an interest. I encourage the business in question to take forward its initiatives in Algeria. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, who is not present today, recently visited Algiers, and perhaps it would be helpful if he were to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham to confirm the importance of such commercial links, which we are determined to strengthen.

EU Enlargement (Balkans)

Mike Gapes: if he will make a statement on prospects for EU enlargement in the Balkans.

Jack Straw: The Thessaloniki summit in 2003 offered western Balkan countries the prospect of eventual membership of the EU, if they fulfilled certain political and economic conditions, including co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. The June 2005 European Council reaffirmed that position. The future of the western Balkans lies in the European Union, which is the best guarantee of a peaceful and democratic future for the region, by contrast with its history of ethnic bloodshed and conflict.

Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the Croatian Government that no progress will be made on Croatia's application to join the European Union until Croatia makes progress on indicted war criminals in former Yugoslavia?

Jack Straw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election by the Foreign Affairs Committee as its Chair for this Parliament. I look forward to an interrogation by the Foreign Affairs Committee that is equally intense as those that I have experienced in the past.
	We all want to see negotiations with Croatia that lead to full membership of the European Union, beginning as soon as possible. As the European Council has clearly stated, however, that process must take place on the basis of full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. So far, sadly, such co-operation has not been adequate.

Daniel Kawczynski: I have been impressed by the Serbian Government's attempts to comply with the requirements to enter the European Union, but I am disappointed that there is no timetable for entry. Will the Secretary of State indicate when Serbia might be allowed to join the European Union?

Jack Straw: The same point applies to Serbia and Montenegro, and to all the territories that were formerly part of the Republic of Yugoslavia. We see their future inside the European Union, but that must be on the basis of full co-operation with the tribunal in The Hague and on other matters. Serbia and Montenegro is at an earlier stage than Croatia. It is looking forward to agreeing a stabilisation and assistance arrangement with the EU, but that, too, depends on full co-operation and, in particular, on the delivery of Mladic and Karadzic.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does the situation not also depend on the final status of Kosovo? Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to explain Her Majesty's Government's view on the final status of Kosovo, which must be addressed before we can discuss the entry of Serbia and Montenegro into the EU?

Jack Straw: Special Representative Kai Eide is conducting his inquiry and will produce a report later this year; I think that it is due in September. On the basis of that review of whether Kosovo has sufficiently met the standards required of it by the international community, we will all be able to make judgments about Kosovo's final status.

Nigel Evans: Irrespective of the other obstacles that face countries such as Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro, I was in Montenegro on the day the French referendum result came through, and there was a feeling that it would be an enormous setback for all the Balkan countries in acceding to the European Union. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will work with his European Union counterparts to ensure that that, at least, will not be an obstacle to their accession?

Jack Straw: I never thought that I would hear such sentiments expressed in this House. I know the hon. Gentleman very well; he has the next-door constituency to mine and fills up the local newspaper, as well as the House, with endless attacks on the European Union and all its works, particularly the constitutional treaty. Now we hear that he is in favour not only of the European Union but of the constitutional treaty. There is always time for sinners to repent, and in his case he has a lot more time.
	It is interesting that there is particularly intense support for the European Union—and, I may say, for the constitutional treaty—in the countries that are desperate to come into it, because they have seen what an engine it has been for peace, stability, prosperity and democracy across the whole of eastern and southern Europe.
	On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, we cannot allow the failure so far of the constitutional treaty to be a block on enlargement, nor is it a precondition for enlargement.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's words, particularly in respect of Serbia, are very important. It is absolutely clear that Serbia's long-term destination is within the European Union. Will he make it clear to the population of Serbia that the people who betray the Serbs and, indeed, the Montenegrins, are not western European politicians, who do not have it in for that country, but those in Serbia who will protect Karadzic and Mladic and want to keep Serbia isolated for their own narrow and corrupt purposes?

Jack Straw: I will indeed. When I was in Srebrenica last Monday for the most moving of ceremonies to commemorate the slaughter of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims within sight of where we were, at the battery factory, one of the most courageous and impressive acts was the visit by the President of Serbia and Montenegro almost as an act of atonement on behalf of his people. Sentiment is changing in Serbia and Montenegro, and we should give all those who are standing up for democracy and human rights in that country every support.

John Randall: What progress is being made during Britain's presidency of the EU with regard to getting the name of the Republic of Macedonia recognised, as opposed to the current anomaly of calling it the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?

Jack Straw: In our bilateral relations, the name that we recognise is the Republic of Macedonia. The difficulty in international forums is that because of a longstanding historical dispute between Macedonia and Greece the name that is recognised is that of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Discussions are taking place between Macedonia and Greece, and once those are resolved, the name issue will be resolved. This is a further indication of the tortured past that haunts the present in the Balkans.

Denis MacShane: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend's friendly support and encouragement for the Balkan states' road to Europe, plus his firmness on their meeting the conditions, is well known, respected and admired there and in the rest of the European Union. In that regard, will he write to the French Government in respect of a report in yesterday's edition of The Guardian stating that in 2001 the French authorities gave a French—that is, a European Union—passport to the indicted war criminal, Ante Gotovina, who is, after Mladic and Karadzic, the most notorious war criminal in the region? When he gets a reply from the French Government, will he, as well as writing to me, be so kind as to put a copy in the Library?

Jack Straw: May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done and will continue to do in helping to encourage Balkan countries into the European Union, as well as much else? I did not see the piece in The Guardian yesterday. I apologise to the editor for not reading his newspaper from cover to cover yesterday—[Interruption.] I am reminded that I was in Brussels.
	It is my understanding that the indicted war criminal General Gotovina served in the French Foreign Legion and is a French citizen as well as a citizen of Croatia. However, I shall take up the matter with my counterpart in France and ensure that my right hon. Friend and the House are fully informed. The French Government have fully supported the efforts that are being made more widely in the European Union to ensure that consistent standards apply to all applicant countries from the western Balkans.

Turkish Visit

Bob Russell: If he will ask the hon. Member for Colchester to accompany him when he next makes an official visit to Kurdish communities in Turkey.

Douglas Alexander: Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary nor I have specific plans to visit the Kurdish communities in Turkey in the near future.

Bob Russell: I look forward to such an invitation. I hope that it will be forthcoming, because the Foreign Secretary well knows that, in the previous Parliament, the issue was dear to my heart and the former Minister for Europe suggested that, if I visited the area, I would perhaps be better informed. In the spirit of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), will his successor maintain the invitation, which was given by default?

Douglas Alexander: Of course I shall consider any invitation that is extended to me. However, I respectfully point out that information is not always the same as wisdom.

Helen Goodman: I am sure that the Minister knows that the person killed in the Turkish bombing came from my constituency. I am most grateful to the Foreign Office for all its support for Helen Bennett's family in the past few days. I want to express the sincerest sympathy and sadness that we all feel at a such tragic loss of life. It is especially devastating for one family to suffer a death and five injuries. I appreciate that we do not know who perpetrated the atrocity, but will the Minister undertake to keep hon. Members and the family informed when progress is made?

Douglas Alexander: On behalf of the Government and, I am sure, the House, I extend my sympathy to the affected family in my hon. Friend's constituency. I pay tribute to the sterling efforts of our ambassador, Peter Westmacott, and his staff for their response to the terrible incident. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Saturday, the explosion was a repugnant attack which targeted innocent tourists. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Turkey in sympathy and in refusing to allow terrorists to destroy our values and liberty. On that basis, I am happy to give an undertaking that we will keep the House informed of the progress of what we hope will be an expeditious investigation.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Minister and his colleagues use the EU presidency to press Turkey to recognise the Government of Cyprus before opening accession negotiations with Turkey? In the light of the approaching anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus, will the Minister outline the Government's plans to drive forward new talks and negotiations between the two sides, with a view to establishing a lasting, functional and peaceful solution to reunite Cyprus?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is a new Member, but she must confine her supplementary question to the subject of the question before us. I cannot invite the Minister to answer her supplementary question. However, she should not worry—senior Members do the same thing.

Keith Vaz: When my right hon. Friend visits Turkey with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)—a visit that I fully support, as I am sure, do the constituents of Colchester—he will obviously discuss enlargement of the Union with the Kurdish communities, as well as with the hon. Member for Colchester. He doubtless noted the article in yesterday's newspapers and the comments of Karl-Heinz Grasser, the Austrian Finance Minister, who asked for the negotiations to be shelved. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to enlargement as regards Turkey? As part of those discussions, will he ensure that the wishes of the Kurdish communities—and, of course, those of the hon. Member for Colchester—are taken into account?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Even during the past couple of days, which I have spent in Brussels, I have been pressing our case, notwithstanding the fact that agreement could not be reached on the future financial perspective at the European Council last month, and I am glad to announce that the Council reiterated the position of the previous Council in December, in regard to the intention to open accession talks with Turkey on 3 October, during the British presidency. Of course, significant progress has still to be made by the Turks in relation to the Copenhagen protocols, but many would agree that the Kurds and other minority groups in Turkey have a great deal to gain from the process of reform and democratisation that has being taken forward apace by the Turkish authorities to date. Of course this will be a long process—we are talking about at least a decade—but now would be precisely the wrong time to send a signal that there are arbitrary barriers facing any individual country. There are, of course, objective criteria, but we want to ensure that we do not close the door to further enlargement of the European Union.

Richard Younger-Ross: May I encourage the Minister to take my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) to the Kurdish areas of Turkey—[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has no intention of going there in the near future, but may I urge him and others on the Treasury Bench to do so when they have an opportunity, as I am sure that they will in relation to Turkey's application to join the European Union? I urge them in particular to consider the human rights of the Kurds, because there is concern that human rights abuses are continuing. While he is there, the Minister might also have an opportunity to consider the situation of the Kurdish communities in Syria and Iran, where there are also large numbers of human rights abuses.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I note that he did not request that I bring his colleague back when I return from that visit. The House will draw its own conclusions from his helpful comment. On the serious substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is fair to recognise the scale of work that has already been done in Turkey. It has made enormous progress over the past two years, through the adoption of a series of constitutional and legislative reforms such as the abolition of the death penalty, new protections against torture, greater freedoms of expression, greater cultural rights for Kurds and others, and a reduction in the military's role in the Government. As I sought to reflect in my earlier response, we recognise that there is significant progress yet to be made, but the House should none the less be heartened by the pace and scale of the progress already achieved.

Jeremy Corbyn: When the Minister does visit Turkey, I would urge him to visit the Kurdish areas in the south and east of the country and to have discussions with the Kurdish people there. While progress has been made on the recognition of linguistic rights, for example, I fear that many of those rights are simply not working on the ground, and meetings and discussions with those groups would be of great benefit to him. Will he also consider the use of the military by the Turkish Government in south-east Turkey, where it has been used to oppress many Kurdish groups? Will he also remind the Turkish Government that the banning of organisations is not necessarily the best way of ensuring that they have free political representation? It is much better to promote an inclusive society in which all communities feel able to be, and are, represented at national level.

Douglas Alexander: On my hon. Friend's point about visits to the south and south-east of Turkey, I can assure him that Peter Westmacott, the British ambassador, and a number of his colleagues representing Britain in Turkey, visit that part of the country on a regular basis. We receive full reports on their view of the situation on the ground. I would note, however, the progress that has been made, not just in terms of the legislative changes that I have mentioned. Broadcasting in non-Turkish languages, including Kurdish, started on national television and radio in June 2004, and I understand that Kurdish music cassettes, CDs and newspapers are now far more freely available, and that Kurdish plays and concerts are taking place.
	I would not diminish the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), however. Of course we want to ensure that those rights are being given practical expression on the ground, and I can assure him that the issue of human rights in Turkey will be at the forefront of many European Union member states' minds over the coming years. I am sure that that will provide an opportunity to scrutinise exactly what is happening in the Kurdish areas and in other parts of Turkey.

Darfur

Anne Milton: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Darfur.

Ian Pearson: There can be no military solution to the situation in Darfur. Only a political agreement can deliver long-term peace and security. We welcome the signature by the parties to the conflict of a declaration of principles as a basis for a lasting settlement, and congratulate the African Union on that achievement. We urge all parties to negotiate in good faith at the next round of talks in Abuja, due to resume on 24 August.

Anne Milton: With 180,000 dead in Darfur, 2 million people displaced and reliant only on humanitarian aid in camps, killing and rapes continuing in those camps, and warnings that hundreds of thousands more might die of starvation and disease, will the Minister assure us that real action will follow his words? The Government talk of passing strong messages to the Sudanese Government, but to many those words have a hollow ring. The public, and many agencies such as Amnesty, need some reassurance.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Lady is right to point to the situation in Darfur. It is much calmer than it was a few months ago, but there are serious humanitarian issues, with approximately 3 million people in need of assistance. I would like her to recognise, however, the work of the Department for International Development in terms of providing humanitarian assistance, and the work of other member states in Europe and internationally. The work of the African Union in brokering discussions between the parties, which we hope will lead to a successful and peaceful Darfur in the future, should also be recognised. Those are real actions undertaken by the African Union, and they deserve the support of the House.

David Drew: My hon. Friend will know that the peace talks at Abuja are within the framework of the comprehensive peace agreement, and we wish all the parties well. Does he agree, however, that there is a real need for capacity to be given, particularly on the side of the rebels, the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, as the British Government did an awful lot of good work latterly at Naivasha in relation to the north-south peace talks? Will he assure me that that is already going on, and will continue in the future?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to point to the capacity issue. As far as the comprehensive peace agreement is concerned, we very much welcome the signature on 9 July this year of the Government of national unity, and the formation of the new presidency. There is a lot of work to be done in terms of the commissions that are to be established. We have already assisted in providing capacity to enable that to take place, and we will continue to do so in Khartoum in relation to the CPA, and where appropriate in Darfur.

John Bercow: Given that the Sudanese Government in Khartoum orchestrated, funded, practised and then defended the genocide of ethnic Darfurians, what assessment has the Minister made of the prospects for the safety of people fleeing Darfur if they are forced to settle in Khartoum?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the situation in Darfur is more stable than it has been previously. There are still some 3 million displaced people, however. The situation is fragile, and far too many incidents of attacks on civilians and deaths due to those attacks still take place. It is important that we strengthen the AU mission, as there is clear evidence that where it has been deployed, it has been effective in calming the situation. It will increase from 2,900 to 7,700 in the coming months. We will keep that figure under review, but we believe that it will make a real difference, as does the AU.

CAP Reform

Adrian Bailey: What discussions he had on EU common agricultural policy reform during the G8 summit.

Jack Straw: I chaired the summit in place of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister while he returned to London following the terrorist atrocities of 7 July. At the summit, the CAP as such was not discussed. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called for reform in all G8 countries, and pressed colleagues to agree on a date by which to end export subsidies.

Adrian Bailey: Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that the benefits of the deals made at the G8 conference on aid to Africa and development would be lost if the EU CAP export subsidies continued to undermine the economies of those self-same African countries? Will he pledge—notwithstanding the demonstrations that have taken place in Brussels over the last couple of days—to press for an end to the CAP regime and export subsidies to developing countries?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right about the damaging effects of those export subsidies, which, in the case of wheat, powdered milk and sugar respectively, are estimated to lead to prices approximately 34 per cent., 50 per cent. and 24 per cent. below EU costs of production. They have a destabilising effect on natural producers outside the European Union. We are pledged to seek 2010 as the end date for the subsidies. Whether we succeed will depend on whether we secure the full support of our EU colleagues, and then on whether success is achieved at the World Trade Organisation round in Hong Kong in December.

Stephen Dorrell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is simply self-indulgent of European Union leaders to go to the G8 summit and sign up to the aspiration to make poverty history, while at the same time defending the present structure of the common agricultural policy? Will the Government focus their advocacy of CAP reform on structural reform of the policy to open European markets to agricultural products from elsewhere in the world? Do the Government accept that the implication of that is reduced EU expenditure, which should lead to a reduction in the overall level of the EU budget?

Jack Straw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. Fundamental reform of the CAP must constitute a straightforward reduction in total financial support for it. However, I do not consider EU member states with a different view to be capricious. Their view is connected with their politics, and the strength of their agricultural lobbies and their electorates. What we must do inside the EU is secure an agreement that is ultimately acceptable to all.
	To those who think that the answer is to renationalise agricultural support, I say that that is not the answer, because it could lead to a degree of national competition that would in turn result in increased subsidies for European farming.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that "reform" can mean as much or as little as we want it to mean, whereas "abolition" is very clear. Will he include abolition as at least one option for debate during the EU presidency, and examine its full implications?

Jack Straw: I have thought about that, because I am an open-minded sort of guy. I have thought about it a lot, because at first blush the criticisms of the CAP are so intense that it would seem to follow naturally that its abolition was the answer. I am afraid, however, that we cannot escape the fact that if we abolish the CAP—including any common policy preventing national state aid from going to the agriculture industry—we could end up worse off, with a bidding up of agricultural subsidies in each of the existing EU member states. We need the continuation of a common regime which will bring down the totality of agriculture spending, while shifting the balance of that spending away from direct support for production to rural development—which is what we have tried to do in this country.

Graham Brady: When the Minister for Europe gave me the Government's priorities for the UK presidency on 6 June, CAP reform was not even mentioned. Two weeks later the Prime Minister was describing the CAP as irrational, and on 23 June he told the European Parliament that a new budget could not be agreed unless it set out
	"a process that leads to a more rational Budget."
	We strongly welcome the Government's new commitment to negotiating a radical reform of the treaties, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that the time has come for the Government to spell out the detail of the reform that they are seeking? To that end, will he now agree to our request for a Green Paper setting out the Government's proposals?

Jack Straw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was paying attention to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said—[Interruption.] That is very clear, because reform of the common agricultural policy is in the White Paper and is also embraced by the policy priority of future financing. One cannot reform the future financing of the European Union without reforming the CAP, which is 40 per cent. of the total spent. As to how that reform is to be achieved, we do not need a Green Paper or a White Paper to spell out the key elements—a reduction in the total amount of spend and a shift in the balance of that spend. What we need is to secure the agreement of our EU colleagues, which is what we are now seeking to do.

Graham Brady: The Foreign Secretary has obviously not read the written answer of 6 June, which did not mention CAP reform at all. He is also being a little vague in his answer. Perhaps it is his inability to give a straight answer on CAP reform that led the French Foreign Minister to tell the International Herald Tribune today that the idea of reforming the EU budget before 2014 is "not serious". Will the Foreign Secretary now prove how serious he is about CAP reform by publishing detailed proposals to reform it? Specifically, if it is irrational for 40 per cent. of the EU budget to be spent on agricultural subsidy, what percentage would be acceptable? Given that Ministers now say that they do not expect any change overnight, will he also set out the timetable? There is a rare agreement across the House that we have a real opportunity to reform the EU for the better. If the Foreign Secretary refuses to answer those simple questions, the British people will be forced to conclude that the Government are wasting that golden opportunity.

Jack Straw: I think it would be a good idea for Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen to listen to the answers before they deliver the supplementaries that they write outside the House. I say again that we have been very clear about what we are seeking and about the timetable. We are seeking a mid-term review of the forthcoming financial perspective between 2007 and 2013. What we propose can be seen in the conclusions to the last European Council in June—that it should be set some time during 2008–09. So far as the—

Graham Brady: What percentage?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is muttering at me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is something that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) should not do. I gave him some licence when he spoke for too long in his second supplementary and I am not going to allow him to interrupt the Secretary of State again.

Jack Straw: So far as the detail is concerned, what we have to do now is not publish a Green Paper—our trajectory is now very clear—but gain the agreement of our EU colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Menzies Campbell? Chris Bryant, then.

Chris Bryant: A sad replacement, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] I have clearly united the House.
	As one who was born three days before the common agricultural policy came into existence, may I say to the Foreign Secretary that one does not have to be an old Eurosceptic like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) to believe that the CAP is in urgent need of reform? I hear what the Foreign Secretary said about being opposed to the repatriation of the CAP, as it might lead to an increase in agricultural subsidy, which would be unfortunate. However, if a co-financing system were on the table, which meant that more money would be paid by the French Government for French subsidies and that subsidies across the whole of Europe were reduced in quantity, would the Government be able to support it?

Jack Straw: We learn something every day and I believe that my hon. Friend was born on 11 January 1962, as the CAP came into force on 14 January 1962—so there we are. On his particular point, I agree with my hon. Friend that co-financing within a common regime may provide a way forward.

Regime Change

Richard Ottaway: What his policy is on regime change in respect of Governments whose policies he considers unacceptable.

Jack Straw: We have no policy as such on regime change—except in the Conservative party. Without context, regime change is an abstraction. Our focus is on ensuring that all other states live up to their international obligations. Where they fail to do so we seek to change their behaviour. We actively encourage and support the development of democracy across the world, as that is the best way by far to secure change in regimes by peaceful means.

Richard Ottaway: I think that the House will take that answer with a pinch of salt. Will the Foreign Secretary accept that there is inconsistency in a policy that takes us to war against a country that has no weapons of mass destruction, yet chooses to ignore countries such as North Korea, which is developing nuclear weapons programmes, or, even worse, Burma, which is using chemical weapons against neighbouring countries? I anticipate that in his reply the Foreign Secretary will fall back on the United Nations, in which case will he explain why there is no UN resolution condemning either country?

Jack Straw: I am indeed going to rely on the UN charter, as it is one of the fundamental foundations of international law. It is not a question of falling back on it; it happens to be the whole of the explanation. In the case of Iraq, there were 12 years of mandatory chapter VII resolutions that authorised the use of force—all necessary means—in 687, 678 and subsequently 1441. In the case of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Burma there are no such resolutions. Why? Because of the difficulty of securing international consensus.

Andrew Miller: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the policies of the Government of Burma are unacceptable, and I for one would like that regime changed. In the context of his response just now, what progress has been made in discussions with other Association of South East Asian Nations members? Their role is mission-critical in developing the kind of international support necessary for the changes we want to see embraced in Burma.

Jack Straw: Almost all the other ASEAN countries disapprove of the Burmese regime, but take a different view from the UK and the European Union about the way forward. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe met the ASEAN countries last year when he had responsibility for that part of the world and, as he has just reminded me, was unable to gain their support for a new Security Council resolution. We continue to say to our ASEAN friends that we do not believe that their approach of constructive engagement with and qualified support for Burma has shown any sign whatever of producing a positive change in that regime.

Menzies Campbell: I apologise for my false start earlier, Mr. Speaker.
	The Foreign Secretary will be aware that paragraph 36 of the Attorney-General's opinion of 7 March 2003, which was published during the general election, stated that
	"regime change cannot be the objective of military action"—
	no doubt in recognition of article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations charter to which the Foreign Secretary has just referred. Perhaps today the right hon. Gentleman could take the House into his confidence. Was there ever any doubt that once military action was commenced against Iraq it would be pursued to the point of the removal of Saddam Hussein? Indeed, was there ever any doubt that regime change was the objective of that military action?

Jack Straw: It is a matter of record that we gave Saddam an ultimatum in the second week of March 2003, which was for him to leave the country and so not face the prospect of military action. He failed to meet it. I accept that the matter has been the subject of controversy and will remain so, but the position of the British, American and many other Governments around the world is that under the UN charter, in principle, if there is an appropriate chapter VII resolution, regime change can be a legitimate consequence of military action so authorised. In the case of Iraq it was our judgment, and the Attorney-General's advice, that such military action was indeed justified.

David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the memory of the three soldiers from the Staffordshire Regiment who were killed carrying out their duty on behalf of the country? The regiment has a distinguished tradition.
	Will my right hon. Friend also take this opportunity to express our horror at the manner in which, among all the killing and carnage that took place in Iraq last week, children, some as young as six, were butchered by terrorists? Is it not the case that anyone in the House who justifies in any way such killing and terrorism is not fit to be a Member of this place? They should be held in the same contempt as those who try to justify what happened in London on 7 July.

Jack Straw: Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the Staffordshire Regiment and to those three very brave soldiers from that regiment who gave their lives for the cause of peace and security in Iraq; there is no higher service than that which they have given.
	On the wider issue that my hon. Friend raises, I agree with him, and I would just like to say that the victims of this terrorism in Iraq have all been Muslim, which I think makes a very important point when we consider whether there is any justification for such outrages and inhumane actions.

Peter Tapsell: On the subject of regime change, has the latest publication by Chatham House, explaining the link between terrorism and the mishandling of the problems of Iraq and Palestine, been drawn to the attention of the Government of the United States and carefully studied by the Foreign Secretary?

Jack Straw: I cannot speak for the United States Government. The report has certainly been carefully studied by me, and it makes interesting contributions to the debate, although the hon. Gentleman will see that, at the bottom of page 2, for example, it is much more qualified than many newspapers have suggested. There the authors of the report say that yes, in their judgment,
	"military campaigns to topple the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and"
	the fact that the UK
	"has taken a leading role in international intelligence, police and judicial cooperation against Al-Qaeda and in efforts to suppress its finances"
	have made us more of a target. All I say to the hon. Gentleman, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that it is inconceivable that we, as a member of the international community, even if we had not engaged in the military action in Iraq, would not have engaged in the action in Afghanistan or stood up against al-Qaeda; and the report says that if we take all those things together it makes us a target. Yes it did; and we were a target in any event, and we would have been notwithstanding Iraq. I say to the hon. Gentleman and other Members who are sceptical about this, with respect, that they need to remember that the al-Qaeda attack against the United States took place out of the blue, unprovoked, on 11 September 2001, 18 months before military action against Iraq, not six months afterwards.

Anne McIntosh: I join the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in paying tribute to the three soldiers who so tragically lost their lives in Iraq. The Government, who were swift to intervene to change the regime in Iraq, have not sought to intervene to change the regime in Zimbabwe, yet Zimbabwe is failing to live up to its international obligations. What action would he consider to be necessary and proportionate to deal with the regime in Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: I think it is the first time that the hon. Lady has questioned me, and I welcome her to the Front Bench in that new capacity. I share the frustration that she and everybody else feels about the situation in Zimbabwe, but the truth is that up to now, it has not been possible for us to gain an international consensus inside the United Nations Security Council against Zimbabwe, much though we believe that there should be one and that the situation there is damaging the whole region.
	I also say to the hon. Lady that it is easy to feel frustrated but it is dangerous for her to imply that the answer is some kind of military intervention. I know of no military plan that could possibly work in respect of Zimbabwe. Moreover, this was emphatically ruled out by the former Conservative shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), when he wrote to me back in October 2002, saying that he had not called for military action in Zimbabwe. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is indicating that she is not. I am glad she is not, but in its absence, we have to work with the tools that we have.
	We managed to secure Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth. We have had increasingly effective and tough sanctions established inside the European Union. Meanwhile we await the report of Anna Tibaijuka, the Secretary-General's special representative, who has just returned from Zimbabwe, and will certainly concert with all our international colleagues to see whether further effective diplomatic and other action can be taken in respect of Zimbabwe.

Military Technology Transfer

Michael Jack: What role his Department plays in making representations to the US Administration on issues relating to military technology transfer to the UK.

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office works closely with the Ministry of Defence to improve the transfer of military technology between the United States and the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the US Administration most recently in May of this year. Those in our embassy in Washington have frequent contact on the issue with their colleagues at all levels of the US Administration and Congress.

Michael Jack: Although I acknowledge the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister's efforts particularly to free up the technology of the joint strike fighter project for availability in the United Kingdom, so far we are only trusted with 10 per cent. of that technology. If Britain is to take the industrial and military opportunities presented by the joint strike fighter project, what further steps will the Minister put to the US Administration and members on the Hill to encourage them to trust their ally and give us opportunities to participate fully in that programme? What advice can he give to hon. Members about the role that we can play to convince our opposite numbers on the Hill that this is a matter for trust, not secrecy?

Douglas Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to reply, not least because I understand that he shares a strong constituency interest in this matter with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—so for that reason alone, I can assure him that the issue is uppermost in our thoughts. The right hon. Gentleman raises the important point, however, that this is not simply a matter of bilateral relations between the UK Government and the US Administration.
	One of the challenges that we face is with the role of committees in the House of Representatives and, indeed, the US Senate. In that regard, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we continue to work on that effort. We have not made as much progress on technology transfer as many of us would have wished, particularly in relation to the joint strike fighter; but I can none the less assure him that we will continue to use our contacts—not just those with our embassy, but at ministerial level—to make those points.
	The right hon. Gentleman's final point was about the role that hon. Members can play. I understand that he has travelled to the US on this matter, and I applaud him for his efforts on behalf of his constituents and in the interests of British industry more generally. If colleagues on both sides of the House are travelling to the US and, in particular, to Washington, I would certainly welcome the opportunity to furnish them with information, to equip them to take forward this discussion with colleagues from the Senate and, indeed, the House of Representatives.

David Taylor: It seems quite clear that the US and UK military strategy is framed entirely by a high-tech weapons-based approach, which has seen annual global military budgets soar to $1 trillion a year. Would it not make much more sense for some of those huge resources to be deployed on things like peace building, disarmament, climate change mitigation, clean energy technology and on measures to tackle resource depletion and environmental degradation, which are the root of so much national and regional instability? Why take the high-tech weapons approach all the time?

Douglas Alexander: Of course, it is a matter of record that, as recently as the G8 summit at Gleneagles, important discussions were held between ourselves, the United States and other G8 partners on some of the issues that my hon. Friend has addressed, but I would respectfully point out that the procurement of military capacity and military technology can contribute to effective joint working on peace building and the range of work that we want to take forward with allies such as the United States.

Peter Viggers: May I thank the Minister on behalf of the small delegation that will visit Washington next week to make representations on the joint strike fighter? Does he agree that BAE Systems has a great deal to offer not only in vertical take-off and landing technology, but in the Typhoon's construction techniques, and that it is crucial that the Royal Air Force and British industrial interests should have access to full information about the joint strike fighter if the RAF is to operate that aircraft?

Douglas Alexander: I am certainly happy to concur with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I reiterate the offer that I made: if we can facilitate further information being provided to him during the coming days—no doubt, in addition to the information provided by the British company involved—we in the Foreign Office will certainly be happy to do so.

Arms Sales (China)

Jeremy Hunt: If he will make a statement on EU arms sales to China.

Douglas Alexander: We are continuing discussions with EU partners on the modernisation of strategic export controls, including the review of the arms embargo on China. There will need to be more consultation in the EU and with other international partners before any decision on the arms embargo is taken. In those discussions, we recall the European Council conclusions in December 2004 that any decision on the arms embargo would not result in an increase of arms exports to China in either quantitative or qualitative terms.

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. While I appreciate the diplomatic and commercial significance of the decision on the arms embargo, I am sure he will agree that the decision also has tremendous military significance for the people of Taiwan. Does he agree that our policy towards Taiwan must be consistent with our policy towards Afghanistan and Iraq, where we have always recognised the fundamental importance of allowing and promoting people's right to determine their own destiny?

Douglas Alexander: Despite having no diplomatic ties with Taiwan, we enjoy good relations with it in areas such as trade, investment, culture and, indeed, education. However, sometimes a fallacy creeps into the discussion about the review of the arms embargo. I point out that the embargo that is in place at present does not cover areas such as avionics, radar and satellite and communications systems, so although it is important to be respectful of the points of view of all parties, which will be covered by the review, we should be absolutely clear about the effect of the review that is under way.

Gordon Prentice: Have any representations been made to Beijing about the reported remarks of General Zhu, who envisaged a nuclear strike against the United States if conflict began over Taiwan?

Douglas Alexander: I am not aware of the comments to which my hon. Friend refers. Of course concern has been expressed about the anti-secession law that was recently passed. Although we in the United Kingdom wish to support China when it states that it wants to resolve the Taiwan issue using peaceful means, as is recorded in the law, we remain concerned about the reference to the possibility of "non-peaceful means".

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the maintenance of the embargo on EU arms sales to China, but I do so in particular because, as the Government will be aware, China is taking an increasing interest in Africa and is involved in the sale of arms to Zimbabwe. Are the Government concerned about that? Does it weigh heavily with them in respect of their consideration of lifting the arms embargo? Are they in favour of China actually selling arms and weapons to Mr. Robert Mugabe so that he can subdue the poor people of his country?

Douglas Alexander: The Foreign Secretary has already made clear the extent to which we deplore the actions of Robert Mugabe's Government in Zimbabwe, even during the course of these questions. The general point that the hon. Gentleman raises is important, which is why we have been advancing the argument for an arms trade treaty. It is fair to say that support for such an idea is limited to a fairly small number of countries, but I assure the House that we will try to expand the group greatly to get a consensus for negotiation in the United Nations on such a treaty.

EU Presidency (Environment and Sustainable Development)

Helen Southworth: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the priority given to environment and sustainable development during the UK's Presidency of the EU.

Douglas Alexander: Our two Departments worked closely together on the EU presidency White Paper, which sets out the priorities for our presidency. These include climate change, the review of the EU sustainable development strategy and the new EU chemicals strategy.

Helen Southworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that environmentally conscious chemicals manufacturers in Warrington are worried that the excessive regulation proposed in EU chemicals directives could destroy competitiveness and drive chemical manufacturing out of the UK and into unregulated states, which would have a considerable cost for jobs in the UK and the global environment? Will he take action?

Douglas Alexander: I assure my hon. Friend that we have taken a close interest in the matter, not least because the type of chemical industries that she describes exist not only in Warrington, but in Paisley and Renfrewshire, South, which I have the privilege of representing. Ciba Speciality Chemicals, which is in my constituency, has on several occasions raised with me its concerns about the proposed REACH—registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—directive, which is why I welcome the steps taken by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We make it clear that although we are keen to make progress on REACH, we must balance the environmental needs that   we all uphold with the need to secure the competitiveness of EU countries.

UK/US Relations

Paul Flynn: What steps he is taking to improve bilateral relations between the UK and the US.

Jack Straw: Our bilateral relations with the United States are excellent. The United States is crucial to the achievement of the United Kingdom's own international strategic priorities. In that connection I should like to extend a warm welcome to the new United States ambassador to the Court of St. James, the hon. Robert H. Tuttle, who arrived in London at the weekend.

Paul Flynn: In the interests of improving the harmony of those bilateral relations, does the Minister agree with the statement by his counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, that Britain's involvement in the Iraq war increased—I repeat, increased—the threat of terrorist action here?

Jack Straw: I am afraid I am unaware that Condoleezza Rice has made any such statement, but I am happy to catch up with my hon. Friend, and if she did, I will write him a commentary on that.
	May I take this opportunity to put on record something else about my hon. Friend—my appreciation for the first occasion during my whole time as a Minister on which he has expressed unequivocal thanks for something I have done: I arranged for EU Foreign Ministers to hold an informal meeting in his constituency, and he wrote back saying, "Thank you"—full stop. I say to him, "Thank you—full stop."

Keith Simpson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the former British ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, has been circulating a draft of a book called, "The Cost of War"? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is unfortunate, and perhaps embarrassing for him, that Sir Jeremy calls the Americans' decision to go to war politically illegitimate? When Sir Jeremy was our ambassador at the United Nations, did he ever express such views to the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister?

Jack Straw: This is a matter of speculation, but there is an issue—and I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised it—for all Members and for all parties, particularly those which aspire to enter government. There is a long-standing tradition in this country, going back to the middle of the 19th century, by which we have a permanent and impartial civil service, and part of that necessary arrangement is a very high level of trust and confidence between Ministers and officials. For that reason, there are clear rules laid down in the civil service and in the diplomatic service, and we all look forward to those being adhered to in both their spirit and their letter.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
	Mark James Hunter Esq., for Cheadle.

BILL PRESENTED

Food Supplements (European Communities Act 1972 Disapplication)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Nick Harvey, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Edward Leigh, Michael Gove and Philip Davies presented a Bill to provide that a specified Community instrument relating to food supplements shall not have effect in the United Kingdom notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; to revoke secondary legislation giving effect in the United Kingdom to that instrument; to amend the Food Safety Act 1990 in relation to food supplements; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second Time on Friday 14 October, and to be printed. [Bill 46].

Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development)

Lorely Burt: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose conditions on the sale of parkland by local authorities; to make provision about the circumstances in which a planning application may be rejected by a local authority and about rights of appeal in such circumstances; to prohibit repeated planning applications in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill is intended to give communities a greater say in building developments and in keeping the green heritage that shapes the character of their lives. My constituency of Solihull, like many leafy suburbs, is characterised by green open space, parks and many lovely old properties. But that character is being eroded by threats to that green open space and the constant destruction of those houses and the erection of blocks of luxury flats in their stead. The flats or, to use developer speak, "apartments", stick out from the rest of the housing nearby like sore thumbs. Residents hate such development, and more than half of my postbag relates to residents calling for action to stop windfall developments of that kind.
	If councillors want to stop the developments, they are constrained by central Government planning guidance and policy, which permits developers to appeal against council decisions and to make councils pay all the costs if the council loses. So councils may be reluctant to object to planning applications, but if the council will not bite the bullet and refuse a planning application, local people have nowhere else to turn. They cannot object in their own right because there is no third-party right of appeal. If the developer does not appeal, he can make fresh applications again and again, wearing down a community, blighting residents' lives for years and years until they either move away or lose the will to carry on fighting.
	We understand that current planning law was designed to achieve higher intensity development that reduces the necessity for building on open space and green belt. We applaud that, but by designating people's gardens as brownfield land, planning guidelines have had the unintended consequence of enabling developers to target windfall developments in preference to true brownfield sites. Developers, like any other business people, are in business to make a profit. If they can develop a soft target, instead of tackling polluted and more difficult inner-city true brownfield sites, they will do so. It is like putting a goat in a garden and telling it to eat thistles and not the flowers: unless it is restrained, it will go for the prize begonias every time. But when a developer seeks to build in someone's garden, there are often things more substantial than begonias in the way—in other words, trees.
	Often, the first thing a developer will do before an application is submitted is to fell any trees so that their presence cannot be used as a justification for refusing planning permission. And unless those trees are fortunate enough to be sited in a conservation area, or have tree preservation orders on them, there is not a thing that anyone can do about it. That is our first problem.
	The second problem occurs if a council decides to sell off green open space, parkland or some other green amenity as defined in PPG17. In Solihull, despite large petitions objecting, the council has determined that it will sell off more than six hectares of open space to fund the redevelopment of the local leisure centre. Despite the fact that the local community is up in arms, the council is ploughing ahead with destroying our green heritage. When that parkland is gone, it will be gone for ever.
	What happens when the council has another project it needs to fund? What other bit of parkland will it sell off then? Soon Solihull, whose motto is "Urbs in rure" or "town in the country", will have to change its motto to simply "Urbs", or even "Urbs 'r' us", because there will be no "rure" left to talk about.
	People care passionately about their local environment, but they have no say in the decisions taken in their name other than to vote out those who have made the decisions at election time. By then, it can be too late.
	Sometimes the sale of green space affects too small an electorate to enable those people to vote out the perpetrators. There has to be a way of addressing the balance and of giving local people a say in what the character of their local area should be. So that is the problem, and I shall outline how I propose that the provisions in the Bill would tackle it.
	First, there is the issue of public green space. Councils have a duty to consult local people before green space is sold off, but where the council is determined to impose a course of action, consultation can be a sham. I therefore propose that local communities should be given management control of council green space, effectively making it true common land. That would mean that they would have to agree to any change of use or sale. This is already the case in rural areas where there are still commons, and the locals vote on any development proposals. If we extended that principle to public green space, local people in urban areas would then have the responsibilities as well as rights over their green environment.
	I believe that windfall developments are a largely unintended consequence of PPG3. I propose amending PPG3 to redesignate garden land as greenfield land. Under the sequential test of PPG3, true brownfield land would then have to be developed before garden land could be considered. An exception for extensions into back gardens of existing properties would need to be made. If a development involved the building of more than one property, the rules of PPG3 could apply. I further propose a third-party right of appeal so that where councils were unwilling to refuse an application that contravenes the local plan, local people themselves could appeal to the Secretary of State.
	Next is the blighting of communities by continuing re-applications for planning permission. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 will abolish twin-tracking of applications when it is introduced. That will give some relief. However, there is nothing to stop a developer continuing to reapply for different developments on the same site. I propose that after three applications have been turned down within three years, local residents should be given a rest and that no further applications would be eligible for consideration within a further three years. That would enable an almost acceptable application to be modified and re-submitted while protecting local residents from the constant pressure of continuous new applications—a sort of "three strikes and you're out" formula.
	The only trees that are currently protected from destruction are those that are subject to preservation orders, or trees that are in conservation areas. I propose that our leafy suburbs and urban areas should be protected by extending to all urban areas the rules regarding felling and works to trees over a certain size or age. That would put the onus on developers and on everyone else who wants to destroy trees over a certain size or age to notify the local authority. Trees are not only beautiful and worth preserving in their own right; they are the green lung of our communities. We cannot have leafy suburbia without leaves.
	Central control of planning is needed in some circumstances, but one size does not fit all at a local level. People want, and should have, more control over the planning decisions that affect their lives, and the Bill would give it to them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Lorely Burt, John Barrett, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Nick Clegg, Tim Farron, Sandra Gidley, Mark Hunter, Mark Williams and Stephen Williams.

Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development)

Lorely Burt accordingly presented a Bill to impose conditions on the sale of parkland by local authorities, to make provision about the circumstances in which a planning application may be rejected by a local authority and about rights of appeal in such circumstances; to prohibit repeated planning applications in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February, and to be printed [Bill 47].

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put forthwith the Questions on any Motion relating to committal of the Crossrail Bill and on any instruction to the Committee on the Bill, and the Questions may be decided after the moment of interruption.—[Mr. Coaker]

Peter Luff: I am always suspicious of business motions, particularly when no explanation is offered for them. I hoped that at least a brief explanation would be forthcoming. I am concerned, because an earlier business motion, to which, I freely admit, I did not pay sufficient attention, precluded the amendment of instructions to the Crossrail Bill Committee. Paragraph (b)(i) of the Government instruction is particularly offensive, as it prevents the Committee from considering extensions beyond Maidenhead to Reading. An earlier business motion limited the powers of the House to provide effective scrutiny of the Bill, and I am now concerned about the implications of the present business motion. The Government owe us at least an explanation of the need for it.

Derek Twigg: The motion before the House deals with the committal motion and the instruction on the Crossrail Bill. The committal motion formally commits the Bill to be considered by a Select Committee. It sets out the size of the Committee, how it is to be appointed and how it is to operate. Those essentially logistical provisions are well precedented. More importantly, it also sets the petitioning period. Hon. Members will see that we have given people nine weeks, until 16 September, to lodge a petition. Traditionally, petitioning periods have lasted two to three weeks—we are giving people three times that amount of time. The instruction is required to help ensure that the hybrid Bill process that is used for Crossrail is fully compliant with the environmental impact assessment directive. It is designed to guide the Select Committee in its consideration of comments on the environmental statement. Second Reading establishes the principle of the Bill, but that principle is not considered by the Committee. Where comments on the environmental statement relate to the matters that the Committee has a remit to consider, the Committee will take them into account in its assessment.

Theresa May: I am listening carefully to the Minister. The argument that he has just evinced suggests that he considers the termination of Crossrail in the west at Maidenhead a point of principle. Am I correct in my understanding of the Government's position?

Derek Twigg: That is the case, but a Select Committee can consider other related matters. The instruction invites the Committee to inform the House of, but not to comment on or analyse, the nature of representations on the environmental impact of the project that constitute opposition to the principle of the Bill and that, for that reason, fall outside the Committee's remit.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way to me a second time, but he has just implied that the Select Committee will be able to look at the issue of the termini on the Crossrail line. In fact, the Government instruction expressly forbids the Select Committee from looking at alternative termini for that line. He says that it is a matter of principle for the Government, so why are they refusing to give the Select Committee permission to look at alternative termini?

Derek Twigg: The Committee cannot look at the principle, but it can look at the detail.

George Galloway: The exchange between the Minister and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) suggests the ragged nature of the Government's preparation. The Minister will be aware of the looming shadow of judicial review, so why at midday today were the papers from Bindman and Partners, expressly pointing out the grounds on which judicial review could be sought, not among the documents that the Government provided for today's proceedings?

Derek Twigg: I do not know why that is the case, but we will obviously try to find out during today's debate.

Alan Duncan: I detect some confusion in the House about the Minister's answer a moment ago about a Committee being able to look at the detail but not the principle. Will the Committee be able to consider the merits or otherwise of extending the line to Reading?

Derek Twigg: What the Committee wishes to consider is a matter for the Committee, but the principle of the Bill is set out.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the note in the Lobby, under the title, "The Speaker's Provisional Selection of Instructions", you have decided that the instruction in the name of the Secretary of State be moved and voted on, and that the instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), with which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and others are associated, could also potentially be voted on, but only if the Secretary of State's instruction is defeated. Will you reconsider that, for this reason: the second instruction has a broader remit than the first? The logic might be, if it were acceptable to you and others, that we vote on the wider alternative before voting on the narrower. These are highly controversial matters, as you know. Is there any scope for that decision being reconsidered now or during the afternoon's proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: I must follow the order on the Order Paper. That is why the instructions are laid in the No Lobby, as I intended to tell the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The motion is debatable, and I would far rather the Minister made his contribution and that others came in, instead of the Minister constantly giving way. It is rather untidy to do it that way.

John Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that it is for the Committee to decide what it considers and what it does not consider. My understanding was that the instruction was quite specific in tailoring what the Committee can or cannot consider, in a way that seems to contradict what the Minister has just told us. For the sake of clarity and to inform the present debate, will you give us your guidance?

Mr. Speaker: It is for the Minister, not for me, to interpret his instruction.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an awkward debate. We are trying to establish the orderliness of our proceedings, and the questions that I want to put might perhaps be more appropriately put to you. The Minister has so far not answered the question that I put to him, which was why we need the motion, from a procedural point of view. He explained the elements of the debate and we understand that, but if he does not answer that question, would it be in order for me to put a point of order to you, asking why we need the motion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can always put a point of order to me, but he has lost me there. It is the Minister's motion, not mine.

Derek Twigg: A number of the issues that hon. Members have raised and will raise on the committal motion will be debated during the afternoon and evening. The committal motion is self-explanatory. Clearly, it is for the Select Committee to consider the matters. If the Committee wanted to consider the principle, it would have to come back to the House. It is for the House to decide, but what we wish to set today is the principle, and that is what the committal motion does.

George Galloway: (Respect) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to take part in the debate?

George Galloway: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with trepidation, because I want to catch your eye more substantively later.
	What the Minister has just said flatly contradicts what he said a few minutes ago. The Government will have to get some inspiration as to what the real facts are. It cannot be true both that it is up to the Select Committee to decide what it wants to consider, and that the instruction, if passed, circumscribes what it can consider. Both those statements cannot be true. I sympathise with the Minister. The issue is detailed, complex and controversial and I do not want to fall out with him at this stage, because I shall ask him for many things in the course of the debate. We must have clarity on the subject, for clarity there is none in the House at this point.

Martin Salter: It is touching that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) have cited the case for the procedure to include the extension of Crossrail to Reading. On mature reflection, the Minister may wish that his answer had addressed these points. The Department for Transport is consulting on safeguarding the route from Maidenhead to Reading in response to very strong lobbying from the business community and Reading Members of Parliament—we have established a cross-party consensus. Those of us who have an interest in seeing the Crossrail project proceed, but who are also concerned about its impact on existing high-speed services and freight lines and the roll-out to Reading, wonder why the instruction to the Select Committee is so prescriptive. I invite the Minister to open the door to wider discussions on the consequences of Crossrail, which all hon. Members want to approve in principle, because important details have not yet been examined.
	The hybrid Bill process is, by its nature, complex. The Select Committee will have about 12 months of detailed consideration to take on board all the points and concerns. Hon. Members are concerned that the Committee may be fettered by the tightly drawn terms of its instruction, on which we will vote today. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the concerns expressed by hon. Members who support the principle of Crossrail, who want Crossrail to work for the people of London, but who also want it to work for people who seek to commute into London from various constituencies to the west and the east. I hope that that has helped the Minister.

David Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members on both sides of the House clearly want to consider the instruction to the Committee. If the motion is passed, there will be no opportunity for further debate, because the question will be put forthwith. The Minister is shaking his head, but is that the case, Mr. Speaker? Will you allow at least some concurrent discussion on Second Reading about the instruction motion, so that hon. Members can make their points?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own point of order. I will allow the instruction to be debated on Second Reading.

Simon Hughes: I want to say a word or two about the motion, which I want the Government to withdraw after reflection.
	I support the Crossrail project, but this is not the way to win friends and influence people. If we are to achieve consensus, which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) and others want, we must have a wide debate on Second Reading and in the early procedural stages to allow all the issues to be put on the table. It is entirely wrong for the Government to foreclose the discussion about what the Select Committee is entitled to do before we get into the substance of the debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) will lead for the Liberal Democrats.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the vital importance of achieving a consensus that includes not only politicians, but various people in the railway network. Does he agree that this instruction is unlikely to achieve that purpose?

Simon Hughes: I entirely accept that. I am trying to ensure that we end up with an east-west rail link through London from the west to east that will serve people from the west country and the Thames valley, come into and through the capital, and go out to the eastern home counties and East Anglia. That has been on the agenda of this country and this Parliament for many years—certainly throughout your speakership, Mr. Speaker, and before that.
	I want to make three points about why I hope that the Government will reconsider this rather surprising business motion, of which I was not aware in advance. I thought that I was coming here to debate the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill and that, having debated its principles and substance, we could debate the remit that we give to the Select Committee when we ask it to get on with the detailed consideration of petitions against the Bill.

Martin Salter: Before the hon. Gentleman treats the House to his three substantive points, may I seek clarification from the Liberal Democrats that they join the other parties in supporting the principle of the western terminus for Crossrail being in Reading rather than in Maidenhead, as proposed?

Simon Hughes: I think that the answer is yes, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington will confirm that when he speaks on our behalf on Second Reading. I am speaking on the basis of a London constituency interest.

Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: Just once more, as I want to make my three points and move on.

Peter Luff: Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding, as it is mine, that the purpose of this business motion is to ensure that the subsequent debate and votes occur today? I wish that the Minister had confirmed that, but he would not do so. I would welcome that outcome. I support Crossrail in principle, but this instruction turns me against the whole thing because of its restrictive nature. I would like separate debates and votes on the separate issues.

Simon Hughes: That prompts me to make my first point. We have waited a long time for this Bill. It was due in the last Parliament and never came. It was in the Queen's Speech and we hoped that it would come early in this Parliament, but it was put back; it was trailed but did not happen. We understand the reasons for that—I am not being over-critical—but we now have to get moving. The trouble is that we are up against the buffer of the last three days of the parliamentary term before the summer recess. I can understand the dilemma: how does one have a Second Reading debate without any filibustering or delay that would prevent us from forming the Select Committee?
	I cannot speak for colleagues in other parties, but certainly my colleagues and I would facilitate having the procedural debate later tonight or tomorrow, which would be entirely possible. There would be no difficulty if we were allowed to send the Committee a brief saying that it could look at the whole range of issues. That would not divide the House—it would produce a consensus and we could vote on it. This is a serious request to the Secretary of State, who knows these issues very well. Let us have Second Reading of the Bill, which will, I believe, receive the approval of this House in due course, but please do not fetter the hands of the Committee at this stage because there will be complaints that it is not addressing the issues properly.
	My second point is that there is a large degree of consensus. The first parts of the Secretary of State's instructions and those in the name of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and others are the same. They both call for a process dealing with the environmental impact and for the principle of the Bill to allow debate on where the termini should be. It is fairly obvious that if we are to have a great railway line through the country, the decisions on the locations of the termini are central and should be discussed by the Select Committee.
	The instructions agree that intermediate stations should be provided in eight places: Paddington, which is obvious; Bond Street; Tottenham Court Road; Farringdon, with an interchange with the north-south Thameslink line; Liverpool Street, with an interchange with the mainline station; Whitechapel; the Isle of Dogs; and Custom House. So far, there is consensus. The difference is that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and the other signatories to the third instruction ask the Committee to consider three important questions.
	The first question deals with Crossrail's effect on freight and other passenger services. That is an obvious consideration. When a great new railway line is established, the knock-on effect on other users—passenger and freight—should be considered. That is not unreasonable but sensible. The Government, who, to their credit, keep saying that they want an integrated rail network, should accept that.
	The second question requests that the Committee be allowed to consider whether the line could be part of the integrated rail network. We all want that. If one travels from, for example, Hull to Plymouth and happens to go through Oxford or Reading, one wants to know that there will be some interconnection. If one makes a journey down the east coast to Cambridge, one wants to ensure that there is a connection.
	The third question is obvious. Now that we have won the Olympic bid and have the great opportunity of the games, which I have always supported and now welcome—it is fantastic for London—we need to ensure, given the Government's claim at the outset that we did not need Crossrail for the bid, that we do not commit ourselves to building something that disrupts the necessary work for delivering the transport for the Olympics, for example, the east London railway line extension and other projects to which we are committed. It is no good doing a Boston and digging up the whole of London because of Crossrail when we are trying to fulfil commitments in the east end and in south-east London, where I live.
	The second substantive point is, therefore, a request to the Government to give the Committee the job of examining the logical questions on the Order Paper.
	The third point—[Hon. Members: "It is the fourth."] No, it is the third substantive point, which is about procedure. If the Government are uncertain about willingness to co-operate, will they accept assurances from colleagues of all parties that we are all willing to co-operate with getting the Bill from the Floor of the House into Committee before the summer so that we can get on with the job as soon as possible? Nobody wishes to delay progress. If the Government would be reasonable about the process, hon. Members would be reasonable about how we handle the Bill. I therefore beg the Government to withdraw the motion and allow us to do orderly business so that the Committee can get on with its job.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is always unsatisfactory if the House votes on a motion the purpose of which it does not understand. The Government have given no explanation of the motion so far. If we do not pass the motion, am I right that the House could not vote on the subsequent motions after Second Reading?

Mr. Speaker: I simply want to take the motion before us and then I will worry about what happens afterwards. The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. I will know what to do when the House makes a decision. It is up to the House to make a decision.

John Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the Opposition have tabled an instruction. Will it not be debated after Second Reading? When I took advice before the debate, I was told that there might be an opportunity to do that, but it now seems clear from the Under-Secretary's comments and your ruling that, if we pass the imperfect motion that we are considering, which has been criticised by all parties, there will be no opportunity to discuss anything else on the Order Paper after Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I shall consult on the matter.

Alistair Darling: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Let me answer the point of order. If the business motion is defeated, the committal motion and the instructions cannot be debated today.

Peter Luff: They cannot be voted on.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. My apologies—they cannot be voted on today.

George Galloway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I promise to brief, though my immediate thought is, "What a way to build a railroad." Is not it possible for a short adjournment to take place while advice is sought about framing the motion in a way that would take account of what has been said? It would be passing strange for the House to vote on a motion that Ministers are not even prepared to defend at the Dispatch Box, so bereft are they of justification for it.

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State has indicated to me that he wishes to address the House on that matter.

Alistair Darling: I intend to cover all the points that have been raised in relation to the instruction and the procedures, and to give the Government's view on them. However, as I understand it, if the House agrees to the business motion now, there will be a vote on the   principle of the Bill—its Second Reading—at 10 o'clock. We will then reach motion No. 8, which is the Government's instruction, and if the House does not like it, it can vote it down. Then, as I understand it, the Opposition's instruction to the Committee would be considered. However, the business motion gives the House the opportunity to vote on these matters. At risk of straying from the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hope, during the course of my remarks, to be able to accommodate many, if not all, of the points made by hon. Members? I believe that our instruction to the Committee will allow that.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, allow me to put the Question.
	Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Crossrail Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I would like to inform the House that the list of my selection of instructions is in the No Lobby.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	London has relied on railways and underground lines built largely by the Victorians and it now needs Crossrail if it is going to cope with the needs of the 21st century. The Bill will provide the powers needed to build Crossrail, a new railway that will bring enormous benefits not only to London, but to the south-east and the wider United Kingdom.
	As I suggested in the previous debate, I want to cover three main areas. The first involves the procedures involved with a hybrid Bill. During that part of my speech, I want to cover the points raised by. Members on both sides of the House relating to the instructions. The second area involves what the Bill does, and the third covers the proposed route. That might help Members to time their interventions.
	The procedures in relation to a hybrid Bill are unusual, so the House would benefit from some discussion on that before we come to discuss the route. I hope that, subject to stretching your patience, Mr. Speaker, I shall be able to give way to all Members who wish to raise points. I recognise that a Bill of this importance, and which impacts on the interests of a large number of people along its route, is bound to be controversial—not necessarily on party political grounds, although some hon. Members are against the proposal on principle—and it is in the interest of the House to debate these matters properly.
	I now come to the nature of the Bill. The last hybrid Bill to be introduced to the House, over a decade ago, dealt with the channel tunnel rail link. Hybrid Bills are used for projects of such national importance that it is appropriate for the Government to take the lead in strategic development. However, because they deal with specific private interests, they are dealt with differently in both Houses of Parliament. A hybrid Bill has aspects of both a public and a private Bill. It is introduced by the Government and, like any public Bill, contains provisions that either affect everyone or affect particular classes of people.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) asked how Crossrail would link into the national network, in relation to trains running to the west of Paddington. I shall come to that issue later in my speech, but I mention it because it will be dealt with by an unusual procedure, because this is a hybrid Bill. If we give the Bill a Second Reading, it will go to a Special Select Committee that will have the power to hear petitions against it. That is where people who have concerns about their property or about disturbances, for example, will have an opportunity to be heard. That Select Committee will sit a quasi-judicial capacity. It then goes to a Standing Committee—most of the House will be familiar with that as it is a normal procedure on a Bill—then on to Third Reading and then to another place, where exactly the same procedure is followed.
	It is patently obvious that because the Bill has such long stages in both Houses it will take some considerable time to go through Parliament, which means that there ought to be ample opportunity for just about every possible complaint and comment to be heard. As a word of caution, however, the last Crossrail Bill fell precisely because there was a lack of clarity as to the reason for the Bill in the first place—because it was a private Member's Bill, the House never decided on the question of principle—and it eventually collapsed under the sheer weight of objections. I very much hope that we can avoid that fate.
	The procedural position is that if the Bill gets its Second Reading tonight, it will be sent to a Select Committee, in accordance with the instruction that we have tabled—to be fair, I think that all the instructions do that—with an opportunity for members of the public and others to petition against the Bill, so that their objections can be tabled, and which the Select Committee can then hear. The point is that there will be ample opportunity for members of the public and Members of both Houses of Parliament to have their concerns dealt with.

Si�n James: For clarification, what, if any, detrimental effect would the construction phase of the Crossrail project have on south Wales rail services relying on Paddington station?

Alistair Darling: I shall come to that later. I know that concerns have been raised by Members representing constituencies to the west of Paddington about access into Paddington station. I will go into that in further detail, but there is no reason why trains coming into Paddington from south Wales and the west country will not continue to be able to do so, as they do now, as they use the fast lines into Paddington, whereas Crossrail will be using the slow ones. I shall explain in greater detail why there will not be the impact that people fear.

Martin Salter: rose

Alistair Darling: I want to deal with the procedural points before giving way again, or we will get tangled up.

Martin Salter: I shall intervene later on the issue of routing. Can the Secretary of State clarify, in a way that his colleague chose not to do, the interrelationship between the instruction to the Select Committee and the current consultation that the Department for Transport is carrying out on the safeguarding of the route from Maidenhead to Reading, which, at a later stage, would allow Crossrail to have a western terminus at Reading rather than at Maidenhead as proposed? What is the interrelationship between the consideration and work of the Select Committee and the current consultation that the Department is carrying out?

Alistair Darling: I will deal with that matter later, as it takes me into a long passage of my speech with which I must deal.

David Drew: My point is on a procedural matterthe relationship of the franchises, particularly the Greater Western franchise, which is currently being discussed. Is not it possible that those who are bidding for that franchise will at least try to gauge the likelihood of the Crossrail Bill going through, as that has a major implication in terms of how many additions, or reductions, to services might take place? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Alistair Darling: On no possible view will Crossrail be open for services before the current Greater Western franchise is completed. Indeed, if discussions go on much longer this afternoon, it might be some considerable time before Crossrail opens. The franchisees who are bidding for the Greater Western franchise at the moment know of Crossrail and what the plans are, as they have discussed them with the Department. On any view, however, that franchise expires before Crossrail services will be running, so I do not think that that is a problem.
	I want to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West. I want to say something about the instructions. As a preliminary point, the House knows that the Select Committees that we set up have a fair amount of latitude. Indeed, successive Governments have got into awful trouble by being over-prescriptive. Nevertheless, because of difficulties we have encountered in the past and because I think we must get people to focus on a particular propositionwhich is the subject of the Billwe have tabled an instruction to the Select Committee to regard the principle of the Bill as including a proposition, namely, the provision of a railway running from Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east, with a prescribed number of named stations on its route. That does not preclude the Select Committee from considering possible variations, and if it heard representations relating to other matters it would not be precluded from saying so to the House.
	I note, incidentally, that every amendment to our instruction includes a restriction relating to the environmental impact, so the principle has been accepted to that extent. I fear, however, that if we do not issue our instruction, the Committee will receive only the most generalised instruction. The whole process could continue for months, if not years. There is a serious risk that one of two things could happen: either we might not reach a conclusion, or the costs of the project could rise beyond any reasonable level.
	The purpose of our instruction is to tell the Committee that the House has given the Bill a Second Reading and that the principle of the Bill ought to include the establishment of a railway line that is specified in the instruction. I do not think that the Government or the House can tell the Committee, Thou shalt not consider anything elsefor example, matters relating to any one of the stations along the route. It is open to the Committee to say that a station is in the wrong place, or that there ought to be a station somewhere else. We cannot tell the Committee, No, you cannot consider any of those things. However, unless we have a stab at instructing it on what it ought to be considering, we run a serious risk of allowing this Crossrail project to meet exactly the same fate as others in the past. The whole thing could run into the sand.
	At 10 pm, the House will have the option of voting down our instructionalthough I should say for the avoidance of doubt that I hope that my colleagues will join me in the Lobby. If our instruction falls, there are others tabled by the Opposition and by individual Membersamong them the hon. Member for Ongar, to whom I now give way.

Eric Pickles: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but he should not forget the Brentwood part of my constituencyand, more particularly, the Shenfield part.
	The Secretary of State is being very clear and he is trying to be reasonable about the powers of the Select Committee. Does that reasonableness extend to petitioners? Will they be able to petition Parliament on where the termini should be, or will such petitions be ruled out of order?

Alistair Darling: I do not think that we can prescribe what is in a petition. The instruction is to a Select Committee. Members of the public are entitled to petition Parliament on whatever they want. I suspect that there will be petitions against the principle of the Bill, full stop. Indeed, I should be astonished if there were not, and we cannot stop them from coming in.
	All the instructions are similar, in that they tell the Committee that it should treat the principle as having been established by Second Reading. Our instruction goes further, in that it suggests the route. I repeat, however, that if someone came along and said that the stations or the termini should be different, the Select Committee may well want to consider that. It would be up to the Committee.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: Hon. Members should not worry. Everyone will have a chance to intervene. On this occasion, patience will be rewarded.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar's instruction would restrict the termini to Paddington and Liverpool Street stations, which would make it far narrower than the Government are proposing. I must say that it would destroy the economic case for the development, because unless the railway line runs beyond the two ends of the tunnel, it becomes an extremely expensive proposition.

Eric Pickles: rose

Alistair Darling: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again in a few moments.
	Our instruction allows a full debate of the sort that the House wants. The other general pointI think that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey raised it earlieris that public policy issues such as freight policy or the integration of the railways are likely to be discussed less in the petitioning process and the Select Committee than in the Standing Committee. That is what the Standing Committee procedure is all about.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I give way first, as promised, to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State, who is being very reasonable. My particular instruction was not selected, so discussion of it is largely academic, but if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that no technical restrictions would prevent my constituents from petitioning the Select Committee with regard to the termini, he may well have satisfied me.

Alistair Darling: That would be amazing. The hon. Gentleman went to the trouble of tabling an instruction, so I wanted to point out that it was very restrictive and would have rendered the project uneconomic. The House should make the point to the Select Committee that if we do not receive some guidance about what the Bill is all about, we could end up, frankly, going all over the place, which none of us wants.

Alan Duncan: I appreciate what the Secretary of State says about our amendment to the instruction perhaps prolonging the Committee stage, but given that petitions can be accepted on anything, I do not really see quite why that is the case. Inasmuch as our proposal refers to the need for proper rail freight services and an integrated transport network as well as the requirement to be properly in tune with plans for the 2012 Olympics, how   does it depart in any way from Government policy?

Alistair Darling: I do not think that we have yet reached the stage where Conservative policy is exactly the same as ours[Interruption.] We shall see. The point is that the Select Committee will concentrate on matters relating to the petitions, which I would expect to be mainly concerned with matters of private interestproperty take, land acquisition and so forth. In respect of the acquisition of sites presently used for freight, for example, some broader policy issues will be raised. The second part of the Opposition's instruction refers to rail freight, the national rail network and the Olympics and I intend to say something about all of them shortly. Typically, those issues would be dealt with by a Standing Committee because they deal with general public policy rather than private interest.

Alan Duncan: indicated assent.

Alistair Darling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. As the House will appreciate, it is our job as Members of Parliament to determine matters of public interest. When private interests are at stake, it is right to establish a separate procedure to deal with them. That is why the hon. Gentleman's instruction is unnecessary.

Nick Raynsford: I speak as a Member who served on the Select Committee that considered the original Channel Tunnel Billnot the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill19 years ago. That Select Committee sat for almost six months and had to deal with an enormous quantity of petitions and it clearly lacked the sort of detailed instruction that is being proposed today, which should make it possible to decide what priority to give to a range of petitions. Given the risk of so many petitions clogging up the Committee's work and diverting it from its priorities, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not give the impression that anyone can petition and that all those petitions will be considered. It is precisely the need for clarity about priorities that Select Committees faced with a deluge of petitions require. I hope that I am not being unhelpful to my right hon. Friend, but I want to be helpful to the Select Committee that will have to consider the petitions.

Alistair Darling: Actually, my right hon. Friend's comments are helpful, as he speaks from experience. It is open to anyone who wants to do so to petition Parliament; people have a constitutional right to do that and we cannot turn them away. However, the point that I was making, with which I think my right hon. Friend agrees, is that unless the Committee has some instruction and guidance from the House on what it is supposed to be deciding, someone could, at the extreme, argue passionately for the inclusion of a Crossrail station at Georgetown, near Thursothe Select Committee might take the view that that would be a station too farso it is important that we give some clarity. As my right hon. Friend was so helpful, it pains me to say that I do not think that I can accept his instruction, although I shall deal with the question of Woolwich later on.
	I hope that the House can accept that we are trying to balance people's right and need to be heard with the fact that if we do not give the Committee some clarity it will be difficult, as my right hon. Friend has just said, for it to make progress in anything like a sensible period of time.

Mark Field: I thank the Secretary of State for his explanations and clarification. He will appreciate that there are great concerns, especially in central London, about the precise nature of the route. For the avoidance of doubt, may I take it that his comments of the past 10 minutes ensure that the route through central London is by no means set in stone, even though it has been set out, and that it will be open to full debate in the Committee?

Alistair Darling: As I said earlier, it is open to the Select Committee, after listening to petitions and representations, to come up with proposals. I also said that if the House gives the Bill a Second ReadingI hope that it will receive cross-party supportthe Select Committee will bear in mind that the one thing that would kill the Bill would be amendments that hugely add to its expense or so change it that the whole of its economics change.
	I am sure that not every aspect of the Bill is perfect, and it will need changes, so we have to achieve a balance in the amendments. All members of the Select Committee should bear in mind that without too much difficulty we could end up creating a railway line that was completely different, vastly more expensive and would thus almost certainly never be built. For the sake of London, in particular, that would be an absolute tragedy. However, the hon. Gentleman is rightif Members and the public want to make representations about stations and the route, they can do so to the Select Committee.

Peter Luff: The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. His distinction of the roles of Select and Standing Committees was genuinely helpful, although I suspect that paragraph (c)(i) in both my instruction and that of the official Opposition touches on private interests and should thus be a matter for the Select Committee.
	May we have clarification on the nature of an instruction? In my reading of the Government's instruction, paragraph (b)(i) says in effect, You may not look beyond Maidenhead and that was my central objection. However, the Secretary of State seems to be telling the House that it is not really an instruction but a piece of advice, and that if the Select Committee wants to look at issues relating to Maidenhead and Reading, it may do so. In that case, what is the purpose of the instruction? That is not a hostile question; it is genuine intellectual curiosity. Why?

Alistair Darling: Because, as I have said on a number of occasions, we deliberately took a light touch. Select Committees must have a certain amount of leeway if they are to work effectively, but I think that the Select Committee will want some guidance from the House on what it should be considering, precisely to avoid the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) raised. That is why the Government's instruction puts to the House the proposition that an instruction be given to the Select Committee to look at a specific proposition. However, as I said earlier, if someone comes along with a petition on something different, such as varying the line of the route, no Government or, indeed, the House, would say that the Select Committee should not consider it. At the end of the day, when the House is invited to consider the report of the Select Committee, a judgment will have to be reached. I shall say something about Reading later in my remarks, which I should get back to in the not-too-distant future.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The House is in some difficulty, because while hon. Members want all the evidence to be available, there are a number of parallel issues that will not actually be involved. Will my right hon. Friend make it very clear that he will be discussing the way that this scheme meshes in with Olympic developments and other overall railway issues, which would divide off in people's minds the problems that we are facing this afternoon and the need to have an overall clear railway policy?

Alistair Darling: I intend to come to that matter. Having probably been too generous in terms of the usual convention of the House, I will now come to some of these matters later. My hon. Friend is quite rightthere are matters of general policy that will get debated, especially in the Standing Committee, although inevitably because of the nature of petitioning I suspect that one or two will come up in the Select Committee as well. My hon. Friend is right that it is important that we ask ourselves how Crossrail fits into the national picture. I can deal with the Olympic points very quickly

Mark Francois: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Darling: No; I shall make progress and then I will let hon. Members intervene.
	For the avoidance of doubt, the Government have always made it clear that Crossrail was never, ever going to be ready for the Olympics, although there are other issues, such as the planning and initial construction of Crossrail at the same time

Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is being very helpful. Will he clarify two final things on the instruction process? Will he explain the implication of the first bit of his instruction? What are the environmental matters that cannot be considered by the Select Committee? I think the phrase is,
	prevented from considering by the practice of the House.
	Do we all understand the Secretary of State to say that the three matters that were in the additional instruction, but not in his, are actually all public policy matters that he believes it is perfectly proper for the Committee and the whole House to consider as and when they want to?

Alistair Darling: Inasmuch as I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, the policy matters that he touched onsuch as rail freight, the services out of Paddington to the west and the integration, to which I shall comeare not really Select Committee matters, although the Select Committee may touch on them if it wants. However, they are certainly Standing Committee and Third Reading matters and they will be discussed then.
	The first instruction is common to all the instructions. It is basically saying to the Select Committee that if someone comes in with an environmental objection and says, I am against it on principle, the Committee can tell us about it but it cannot take it on board, because there is no point in our having an in principle Second Reading debate if the Committee then says, We do not think there is a need for Crossrailwhich is what happened in 1994. Who knows? If that had not happened in 1994, Crossrail might have been open. It might not, but it might have been.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State has reassured a number of hon. Members that both the termini and the railway stations along the route can be reviewed in the Select Committee. Will he reassure me that this also applies to the proposed location of the depot, which is proposed to be placed within my constituency of Romford?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I can. The depot at Romford is an integral part of the project. Clearly, if we cannot maintain the trains, Crossrail will not run for very long. I know that there are issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised in written questions in the House and that his constituents will no doubt want to raise in relation to the depot and the access to it, so yes, that will be considered.
	To conclude this part of my speech, what I am inviting the House to do tonight is to agree the principle of the Crossrail project, which is a railway that runs between the termini at Shenfield, Maidenhead and Abbey Wood, and to agree that the main intermediate stations are at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, the Isle of Dogs and Custom House. Separate Committees in both Houses will consider these matters further and there will be an opportunity for more general debate, as I have described.
	I shall outline the purpose of the Bill. Crossrail will deliver extra capacity on the rail network in London and, importantly, will provideas hon. Members have already mentioneda vital new link in the strategic rail network, into which it will be integrated. The main purpose of the Bill is to secure the powers necessary to build Crossrail, and that will consist of new rail tunnels running east-west through central London, connecting directly the existing surface rail routes to Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west and Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. By connecting the major London rail terminals at Paddington and Liverpool Street, it will enable interconnecting main line train services to cross the centre of London, through a number of new purpose-built stations. So, Crossrail will be part of the existing railway network either side of the London tunnels, and that adds a very important dimension to London's railways.
	Crossrail will be regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation. Once built, its operations can be devolved to the Mayor of London or to Network Rail because the railway will serve London and the wider network. That will bring significant benefits. London's present transport system faces significant problems in meeting demand during the rush hour and we need to deal with the congestion and overcrowding on much of the network during peak hours.

Mark Francois: The Secretary of State mentioned a few minutes ago that the Bill was not perfect and accepted that certain reasonable amendments might be needed. I am particularly concerned about clauses 21 to 31, which appear to give Crossrail priority over all other rail users. There is much concern around the House about that. Is he prepared to look at that point specifically to ensure that we try to get the advantages of Crossrail without damaging interoperability with the existing rail network?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. The Bill is designed to enable Crossrail to be constructed and, to do so, it is necessary to take powers not only to acquire land but, crucially, to allow the Crossrail services to run. Now that the Government have strategic control of the direction of the railways as a result of the Railways Act 2005, we clearly have an interest in ensuring that we have a railway network that not only serves London and its commuters, but is part of the national network. We are putting into London a new stretch of railway, while inevitably using existing railway lines, so it is necessary to take powers in the Bill to ensure that the Crossrail services can run. However, I make it clear to the House that, although the Crossrail services are important, it is equally important that we maintain the other services that run into London, such as the lines that come up from the west of England and south Wales and, at the eastern end of the tunnel, the trains that run on the Great Eastern and East Anglia network generally.
	As I said, the Bill will give us the power to devolve the track itself to Network Rail or to the Mayor of London, but I am absolutely clear that we cannot have a railway where one bit operates to the great disadvantage of the other bit. Crossrail will not just carry the sort of metro services that run in the inner part of London, but link the City of London with areas to the west, using existing services, as well as Crossrail services to some extent. We want the Heathrow Express to continue, as does BAA, which operates it. Crossrail must also tie into the largely commuter services that come in from East Anglia, as well as not just cross-channel but Kent services.
	I want to make it abundantly clear that, once Crossrail is complete, we must regard the railway as precisely what it is: part of the national network, albeit one that clearly serves large parts of London in particular. The reason why I need those powers is to ensure that we can make Crossrail happen, but, as it develops, we want to ensure that we can have a proper, integrated railway network, which is a concern that a number

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: Do not worryeveryone will get in.
	The reason why I will have those powers is that I fear that, without them, neither I nor my successors could ensure that Crossrail works and that we can get those services in place. I want to make it abundantly clear that we must ensure that we regard Crossrail as part of the national network and that it does not squeeze out, to any unjustified degree, other services that are equally necessary.

Theresa May: With due respect, the comments that the Secretary of State has just made appear contradictory. The whole point about the national rail network is that access to it is determined by the Office of Rail Regulation, so the balance of priorities between certain train operating companies and the freight services is determined by that office. The Bill will take that power away from it and enable the Secretary of State to require that certain services be given priority. He cannot justify the statement that Crossrail will be a normal part of the national rail network operated by the Office of Rail Regulation and support the Bill.

Alistair Darling: I said a few moments ago that I envisaged that the railway would be regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation. Our difficulty is that we are trying to build a new railway that will be partly completely newthe tunnelsand partly integrated with the existing network. Powers must thus be taken through the Bill to make that happen and to allow the Crossrail services to run. It is intended that the railway will be part of the national network and that it will be regulated by the ORR. Although it is perfectly true that one cannot run two trains on one piece of railway at the same timeI will come on to deal with questions about the west country service, which I know affects the right hon. Ladythe intention is that Crossrail will be run as part of the national network. Yes, it will provide London commuter services, but it will also provide links for different parts of the United Kingdom.
	The right hon. Lady should have no fear that this will somehow be a bit of railway that will be run entirely independently from the rest of the network. That would not be possible owing to its very nature. If that were the intention, we would do precisely what the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) envisages in the instruction that he has tabled and stop it at the tunnel ends, but that is not the case.

Paul Beresford: The Secretary of State's comments are helpful, but what will happen to new services that are proposed? I am thinking particularly of Airtrack, of which he will be aware and which I think that the Government support. The Airtrack proposers are worried that they will be blocked out of terminal 5, where there will be a shortage of platforms, if Crossrail takes those platforms.

Alistair Darling: I do not think that that will happen. It might help the hon. Gentleman if I say that the Government and BAA, which owns Heathrow, have had many discussions about how Crossrail, Heathrow Express and Airtrack will tie in. Those discussions will continue. The current intention is that Crossrail trains will run to terminal 4, with the Heathrow Express running to terminal 5obviously, both will call at terminals 1, 2 and 3. The current Airtrack proposal is that it will be able to come into terminal 5, but those proposals are not especially advanced at present, so that has not yet been finalised.
	Given the history of the railways, some fragmentation is inevitable, although that is not all to do with what happened 10 years ago. BAA built its own railway as a separate entity from the main railway network. However, Heathrow Express runs perfectly sensibly and well with the existing network, so Crossrail can do exactly the same thing. My specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that BAA and the Department are having extremely useful discussions. The intention is that Crossrail will go to terminal 4, so it will not squeeze out developments at terminal 5.

Doug Naysmith: The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way and helpful by answering questions. He implied earlier in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) that there would be few problems because the two fast lines into Paddington from the west and Wales would remain as they are now. However, it is quite common to find that all four existing rails into Paddington are used, so passenger trains that are meant to be on the fast rails are going on to the slow rails even now, before any construction has begun. Many of my constituents in Bristol are worried that the powers that are being taken could be used to give Crossrail trains priority over trains that currently run between the west and Paddington. It is important that we get some reassurance on this.
	Another reason why the four tracks are often in use is because freight also uses the line, and a lot of important freight comes from the west country

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are getting rather long and we have a long list of hon. Members who wish to try to catch my eye.

Alistair Darling: Perhaps that is an instruction to me as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend raises an important point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and others have also touched.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Doug Naysmith) is right that trains coming into Paddington experience delays. That is partly because the lines to the west of Paddington, like those in many other parts of the network, could have done with investment to improve signalling and track capacity over many years. I shall not get into the argument about that problem again because we all know why it happened. Part of the Crossrail proposal is to spend something like 1 billion on upgrading those lines and making it easier for freight trains to get on and off the main line. If a freight train comes off the main line and goes into a siding at the moment, it can effectively block the line for six or seven minutes. That might not seem like a long time, but if that happens several times a day, the problem soon mounts up, so that is one reason why my hon. Friend's trains sometimes get held up.
	The intention is that Crossrail will use existing slow lines, not the fast lines. The fast lines will benefit from the additional electrification to ease freight train access to which I referred, and fast train services ought to be able to run. Some of the stories appearing in Bristol and further south-west about 40 per cent. cuts in capacity are absolute rubbish. It is one person feeding off another and such stories are not justified. There is no way that I would sanction anything in London that would result in a 40 per cent. cut in trains from the south-west of England.

Doug Naysmith: I am pleased to hear it.

Alistair Darling: I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks that. The south-west of England is very important to the country and such scaremongering is nonsense. Crossrail will use the slow lines and also subsume some suburban lines. He should not be concerned about any adverse impact on trains from points west of Paddington, especially long-distance ones. Overall, the additional investment from Crossrail on lines to the west of Paddington will be beneficial not just to intercity services but to suburban services. In fact, the project will contribute much-needed investment to that part of the line, which has been overdue for some time. I hope that I have satisfied him on that point. If not, no doubt he will let me know.

Martin Salter: I certainly associate myself with some of the concerns expressed by other hon. Members. The Secretary of State said that Crossrail will be a vital rail route, connecting with the rest of the rail network. With due respect to Maidenhead, it does not connect with anywhere. Does he accept that there is a powerful and logical case for locating Crossrail's western terminus in Reading?

Alistair Darling: Not entirely, no. My hon. Friend is a little unkind to Maidenheadthere is no reason why trains should not stop there. Reading was not included in the proposal because taking the train out there would add considerably to the expense of the project, not least because substantial resignalling around the Reading area would be required and there are problems with capacity at Reading even at the moment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), the former Minister in the Department, said in the debate on the carry-over motion that the Government would consult on whether we ought to safeguard the route from Maidenhead to Reading. We shall be writing in the next few days to ask whether there ought to be such consultation, bearing it in mind that safeguarding brings problems. Once land has been safeguarded, there are consequences for local authorities, and not necessarily for the Government.
	As I said right at the start, the project had to be made manageable and the sums had to stack up, and that is why we chose not to include Reading. My hon. Friend and his constituents and others will no doubt wish to petition the Select Committee on that, but, if we are going to get this built, we have to try to nail down a proposition. I am not closing the door: what my hon. Friend the former Transport Minister said on safeguarding remains the case.

Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way to so many hon. Members. I hope that, if I incur the wrath of my hon. Friends on constituency points, they will move the issue on slightly.
	The Secretary of State is discussing the powers that he is to take for funding Crossrail. As he knows, businesses in London are very supportive of the principle, but there is concern that they will be asked to contribute considerably to the cost. In central London, where the congestion charge is at last being quantified as having a negative impact on the retail, leisure and tourism industries, there is concern that an extra levy on businesses could reduce even further their viability and hence not even the expected amount of money will be raised. Is he coming to that issue or will he reassure businesses in London that they will be able to continue to exist?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, I wish to repeat my advice to the House about the length of interventions. I understand why the Secretary of State is taking interventions and why hon. Members are making them, but we must try to keep them to reasonable proportions.

Alistair Darling: By happy coincidence, I was about to come to the cost, but, first, I wish to make a point directly relevant to the hon. Lady's intervention. If we do nothing, there is a serious prospect that at some point in the next decadeor certainly the one afterLondon will not be able to carry the number of people who come into it. Of all the difficulties that London business faces, that would be the No.1. That is why, over the past few weeks, I have said to the House time and again that we must all ask how we can get more capacity out of the system, be it road or rail.

Peter Luff: rose

Robert Wilson: rose

Alistair Darling: I wish to answer the hon. Lady's point first. You made a fair point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I understand that some 18 hon. Members are down to speak. I do not want to make a Budget-length speech, and I shall now concentrate on the cost issue.
	We think that Crossrail will add some 20 billion to the UK's GDP. It will also benefit London substantially through congestion relief and additional capacity, which will assist commuters. That is why it is necessary to build Crossrail. We think that Crossrail will cost some 15 billion or 16 billion at today's prices. The Bill envisages construction between 2008 and 2015, and, if one looks at the money that would be spent in those years, adjusted upward to take account of inflation, that is the probable order of magnitude.
	I said last year that my Department, together with the Treasury and Transport for London, would take forward work on alternative funding mechanisms that could be used to raise a contribution from London. Most London business organisations are willing to contribute, because they perceive the direct benefit that London as a whole will receive. However, in light of the work that is being done by Sir Michael Lyons in reviewing local government funding more widely, it makes sense to see what he recommends before deciding the detailed balance of funding on Crossrail. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have therefore decided to defer the consultation on alternative funding mechanisms until after the Lyons review.
	It is important to demonstrate our commitment to the project, which is underlined by the fact that we are taking this Bill forward to establish the principle and route of Crossrail. Nevertheless, as the hon. Lady says, it is a significant sum. The cost will be some 15 billion or 16 billion in cash terms. It is a huge challenge, both in terms of funding and in respect of the wider fiscal position, so we need to get the funding right and to take the time to make that happen. My Department will continue to take those issues forward, including the issue of additional development funding, working together with Transport for London.

Robert Wilson: The Secretary of State made the point that Reading was uneconomic as the western terminus. What cost-benefit analysis of that has been made and why would Reading be uneconomic?

Alistair Darling: The issue was considered as part of the cross-London rail links project and all the information is available in the Library. It would take the best part of the rest of the debate to read it all out, but in simple terms, the costs would arise from extending the railway line from Maidenhead to Reading, including construction costs and the consequent need for resignalling at Reading. There are also capacity problems at Reading. I did not say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West that, in terms of time gained, the studies that were carried out showed that most people would find it quicker to get from Reading into Paddington and then change; it would be quicker to use the existing high-speed services than to use Crossrail, which would be a local service. The studies were carried out and the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is welcome to examine them. I may have said that construction costs were based on 2008 to 2015. If I remember rightly, it is 2007 to 2013.
	As I have said, there is a new central tunnel section for the stations to which I referred earlier. Major construction work is necessary at each station site as well as intermediate ventilation and emergency intervention shafts. It is my guess that a number of these areas may concern hon. Members and their constituents. I know that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) will certainly be concerned about Hanbury street. These are matters that the petitioning process is designed precisely to address so that we can ascertain what we can do to try to address concerns, if that is possible. We have tried throughout the process to examine all the options and to come up with those that are the least environmentally damaging and the least inconvenient to people. Inevitably, the construction of a large-scale railway underneath one of the largest cities in the world is bound to have some element of disruption.
	I have mentioned that there are three outlying sections of the scheme to the west, the north-east and the south-east, and I hope that I have explained how they link with the existing network. Decisions about the route, the location of stations and so on were the subject of consultation both in 2003 and 2004. In addition to that, a number of plans have been put forward as alternatives to Crossrail, on which Members may wish to touch. However, I believe that the proposition that we have before us gives us a realistic chance of getting something constructed. It will take time, however, and it will be expensive. I believe that it will benefit London, the south-east and the whole country overall.
	I hope that, during the course of the afternoon, I have been able to address some of the points that have been raised. I suspect that the House will have quite a long time to consider these matters because of the process that has been established both in relation to this place and another place. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members, as well as their constituents, will have ample opportunity to have their concerns explored.
	Having considered these matters for the past three or four years, I am convinced that, if we do not do something about transport problems in London, not only London but the entire country will pay the price. I hope that, as we consider Crossrail and all the problems that we face, we can try together to reach some consensus in relation, first, to the building of Crossrail and, secondly, on the precise shape and form of it. I hope that we can avoid a situation where, in people's desire to be helpful and to add bits on here and there, we do not end up killing the entire project.
	If we pass the Bill tonight, it will mark the biggest single development since Victorian times. It is a huge project with huge benefits. I commend the Bill to the House.

Alan Duncan: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the thoroughness, the patience and the courtesy with which he has treated the House. He has been generous in giving way and he has answered some pretty technical and complicated questions. I think that he has largely overcome the original confusion that was sown about the remit of the Select Committee. I think that the House will be grateful for the understanding tone that he has adopted towards this difficult and complex issue.
	The country needs infrastructure. Building high-capacity routes in a densely populated country is an evermore complex and controversial endeavour. I hope that at least in principle, if not in every detail, we can make the issue of Crossrail something that has cross-party support.
	Britain is crowded. In the past few centuries, we built our infrastructure very wellwe constructed ports, canals, railways, airports, roads and now, by virtue of this project, we will construct railways again. As we build more, however, everything becomes entwined, and as we are not building any more space, inevitably the facilities that we are trying to construct for the betterment of our life overlap and compete for that space. That is nowhere more so than in our capital city, which is congested, highly populated and has many intense traffic movements from day to day. We have built in and out of London; we have built the M25 around it, but we have not built anything across it. The project will go from east to west, and from west to east. Inevitably, it must be a Government endeavour or at least a Government-authorised endeavour, so that the powers needed to implement it are enshrined in law. That is what the Bill attempts to do.
	The Bill has been a long time a-coming. Any infrastructure project of this scale needs some push and drive. The people working on it need to adopt a get on with it attitude, balanced, as is clear from our deliberations today, by acute sensitivity to local and private concerns. Over the years, as I have said in previous debates with the Secretary of State, the country's infrastructure planning has been bedevilled by short-term horizons. The project attempts to take a longer view, and tries to solve a problem before we are completely bunged up and are compelled to do something about it. I lived in Singapore in the mid-1980s, and as we look across the world from west to east, we can see that that country had great planning horizons, and built great capacity, in excess of what was thought necessary at the time. As a result, it has a world-standard metro and a world-standard airport, which has capacity for even more flights.
	Henry Miller wrote:
	Life, as it is called, is for most of us one long postponement.
	To some extent, that is true of the Crossrail project. For as long as I have been in the House, the concept has been hovering, waiting to be put into practice. It has been knocked off course every now and then, particularly in 1994. One of the consequent costs is the escalation of the price that the country has to pay to make it happen. Something that began as a 2 billion project is probably now a 10 billion project, and we can comfortably predict that by the time it is completed it will be a 20 billion project.
	There is no point, however, in rehearsing the passage of events over the past 15 years. Instead, we should take our text from a letter in the Financial Times yesterday that referred to our forthcoming debate. It was signed by many senior business men, including the director general of the CBI, the chairman of Citigroup and others, who urged the Government to get on with it, as it is essential for the economic growth of London and the United Kingdom. We must, as the Secretary of State largely did, look at the route, its planning and construction, as well as its interrelationship with the plans for construction projects for the 2012 Olympics. We must look at fundingthe Secretary of State did not say very much about that, so we may wish to return to the subject later. We must look at the effect of the project on local interests and the intensity of local opinion along the route and among people who believe that they are affected by the knock-on effects of this massive undertaking. We must look at the interaction with other networks, and the regulatory regime, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that will govern it.
	It is proper to put on record the scale of this huge engineering project. If it is undertaken as we expect, it will be one of the wonders of the world. I shall paraphrase the details rather than read them all out, as hon. Members will be familiar with them. There will be 46 km of massive tunnels, some of them 50 m below street level, going under huge buildings and built-up areas of London. That is an enormous engineering endeavour, the likes of which we have never seen before.
	There will be safety issues. In the current security climate, the ventilation and escape shafts are a poignant detail that the Committee will want to study. We will also have to examine the interrelationship with existing railway corridors. Although the Secretary of State offered us some reassurance this afternoon, that interrelationship may pose a problem because we are trying to squeeze if not a quart into a pint pot, a great deal of activity on existing railway capacity, which will be pushed to the limit.
	We are told that Crossrail will be running by 2013. I suspect that is quite an ambitious finish date. A project of such a scale may well take a decade, but it is clear that some of the other suggested schemes are not realistic, and Crossrail is currently the only one on the blocks.
	I said that Crossrail would probably be at least a 10 billion project, and perhaps even more. There is an estimated shortfall in funding of about 7 billion. I would appreciate hearing more from the Minister in his winding-up speech about how that will be made up, and what sort of undertakings and guarantees will be given at the beginning of the project that the money will be available to see it through to completion. All of us can cast our mind back to the channel tunnel, a comparable infrastructure project that was always bedevilled by increased costs and insufficient funding to underpin it, such that it almost went bankrupt. We need to make sure that Crossrail is fully underpinned and can definitely go ahead.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: Yes, of course. Always.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is always enormously courteous and helpful. Is he suggesting that the state should underwrite the whole cost?

Alan Duncan: I shall come in a moment to the relationship between the private sector and the state. That is extremely important, and no doubt the hon. Lady's magnificent Committee will want to look into the matter as well.
	We need a clearer picture of the structure of revenues and funding. The Montague report identified five main potential sources for funding the construction of Crossrail: net travel-generated revenues, which in plain English means fares; any appropriate European Union subventionsit would be interesting to know what they might be; contributions from London businesses and/or individuals, which might be voluntary or mandatory; property revenues; and direct Exchequer support. That is quite a complex structure of financing, with a large number of elements, all of which are fairly uncertain, unless the Minister is able to reassure us at the end of today's debate. I hope that a clearer picture of funding can be forthcoming.

Eric Pickles: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Montague review also stated that it could not confirm the delivery of the business case? Has he seen any evidence produced by the Government or any other documents to suggest that matters have moved on since Montague's statement?

Alan Duncan: No doubt all that will be discussed fully in Committee, but any such infrastructure project will have very large costs at the beginning and will be generating revenues going for decades, if not centuries, afterwards, so the economic models are not easy to draw.
	How the project will interact, in terms of both funding and construction, with the plans that are being laid in preparation for the 2012 Olympics has not been answered adequately this afternoon. I appreciate that we will have the Second Reading of the London Olympics Bill on Thursday, but it is important for the House to have a clear picture of how the two will interact and happily interrelate.
	The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, and the House is very pleased to see her back in that job for a further term, asked about the funding. Following the demise of Railtrack, one must ask whether business men will feel like taking a risk on a project such as Crossrail with the Government as partner. Strong reassurance, and now probably even guarantees, will need to be given if people are to risk tens, if not hundreds, of millions on a project of such a scale in partnership with the Government. The question whether the partnership between the Government and private enterprise may take on an extremely sour tone is extremely serious. I hope that it is certain that that will not happen with this project.

Peter Luff: Has my hon. Friend seen the BAA submission to the Government's consultation, in which BAA expressed serious concerns about the effect on its services to Paddington during the construction phase and subsequently? The construction phase will occur at the same time as the Olympic games, a bizarre moment at which to make traffic difficult between Heathrow and Paddington.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the construction of Crossrail may be to the detriment of the Olympics and that it may decrease capacity between Paddington and Heathrow.

Mark Field: It is unsurprising that Government Front Benchers have not confirmed this point, but there is little doubt that Crossrail will not be constructed before the Olympic games. In my constituency, Charing Cross road will be closed for some two years during the construction phase, when the whole of central London will become a building site. Many of my constituents will welcome Crossrail after it has been constructed, but they are concerned about the impact of construction on day-to-day life. It is inconceivable that large-scale construction will take place before the 2012 Olympics.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend has hit on a serious point. We have been told that the likely completion date for Crossrail is 2013if one allows a couple of years for slippage, it is 2015and the Olympics will take place in 2012. If the hybrid Bill process is completed in both Houses in two years' time and the Bill is enacted, will significant construction get under way before the Olympics? I hope that the Minister answers that question in his winding-up speech. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State spoke for nearly an hour, but every word was worth it, and we are grateful for his thorough approach.
	I do not want to speak for much longer, because I know that today's debate is an important forum for other hon. Members to express their concerns for their individual constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and her constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), are concerned about the question, Why not Reading?, which has been answered, although not conclusively, this afternoon. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) are concerned about the knock-on effects. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is deeply concerned about the construction of the depot in his constituency, and if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no doubt that he will enthusiastically explain the matter in great detail.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend used the analogy of squeezing a quart into a pint bottle. Will he accept that Paddington is the narrow part of the bottle? However much one speeds up the process, it is not possible to get more trains in and out of Paddington, which means that lines to the west will not be developed further. In other words, Crossrail will fossilise our rail services, which we would like to expand to allow more people to travel on the railways.

Alan Duncan: A wag once told me that I, of all people, prove that one can squeeze a quart into a pint potor, perhaps, a pint into a half-pint pot.
	My hon. Friend's point is valid, and the hybrid Bill process is designed to study such issues in detail. We have not seen a hybrid Bill dealing with such a project for a long time, and it will be interesting to see whether the procedure has stood the test of time and can cope with a project of this magnitude.
	Before I finish, I should like to return to the relationship between Crossrail and existing networks and the regulatory regime. Many in the industry who have made representations feel that the Bill undermines the principle of independent regulation. They think that its powers could negatively affect Network Rail's ability to deliver services and that it challenges the wider principle of independent regulation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead suggested. Taken together, clauses 21 to 26 allow the Secretary of State to override the existing processes and access rights that are designed to ensure that timetables reflect the needs of all route users. They enable the Secretary of State to instructnot just permit, but instructthe Office of Rail Regulation to amend existing track access agreements to give priority to Crossrail.
	That appears to establish a regime not of equity but of preference, and therefore challenges the even-handed approach that the ORR is currently required to display. The existing regulatory structure allows the ORR to operate in a balanced way, taking account of the overall need of the entire rail network, but the Bill fundamentally undermines and changes the ORR's role in that respect. It will allow control of the Crossrail tracks to be taken away from Network Rail and force the ORR to give priority to Crossrail trains over those of other operators. That would give Crossrail trains exclusive access to half the track capacity on the routes between Paddington and Maidenhead and between Stratford and Shenfield, which would substantially reduce the capacity available to non-Crossrail users on those routes, force reductions in current service levels, and make future growth impossible. A serious knock-on issue of capacity and track congestion flows from the Bill.
	One of the main representations that we have received, which is very strongly felt, concerns freight. The industry has expressed concern that there is a real risk that large quantities of bulk materialsincluding aggregates, cement, fuel oil and domestic wasteand high-value goods such as cars and manufactured products in containers will be forced from rail by Crossrail services. It is important, in trying to maintain a cross-party consensus, that the Minister should provide a good rebuttal of that suggestion if he can.
	The railway industry has made every effort to advise the Secretary of State of its concerns. In reply, he said that
	there are no plans to acquire permanently part of the Network Rail network for dedicated use for Crossrail services.
	He also said:
	It follows that Network Rail will operate and manage services on Network Rail's network including Crossrail services.
	There are none the less concerns that such powers remain in this hybrid Bill. We are concerned that the Secretary of State's words are not matched by the black and white text of the Bill; and in the end, as we have learned to our cost in many other areas of legislation, what it says in black and white matters most, because that is what courts will decide on, however honest the Secretary of State is.
	I do not want to detain the House any longer because many Members want to speak. This project has been a long time a-coming. We should like to see a broad coalition of support behind it, but one that is sensitive and responsive to the local needs and concerns detailed by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Looking to the welcome award of the Olympics to Britain in 2012, we want to hear that that project will not unreasonably delay the Crossrail project. In short, I say to the Government that they should get on with this if they mean it, but if they do not, they should not raise false hopes and lead everyone a merry dance. We should like it to happen; let us make it happen.

Mike Gapes: I speak as the chair of the all-party Crossrail group and I begin by paying tribute to Linda Perham, who established it in the previous Parliament. Without the group, perhaps we would not be considering Second Reading at this time.
	As chair of the all-party group, I emphasise that it consists not only of hon. Members of all parties but of people with very different views. Members of the group will raise some concerns and criticisms in the debate because we are all committed to improving transport across London and to the national benefits and implications of that. However, we also acknowledge that we have constituency and local interests, which must be taken into account.
	I want to comment on my constituency because Ilford is one of the areas that will benefit greatly from Crossrail. Ilford station is between Stratford and Shenfield and my constituency also contains the stations of Seven Kings and Goodmayes. Chadwell Heath is at the edge of my constituency, although the station is in the neighbouring constituency. The platforms in those stations will need to be extended, which will involve considerable reconstructive engineering work, the removal of waste, many vehicles and possible disruption to the lives of many of my constituents.
	I am unique, in that I am the only Member on Crossrail's designated route who will have a loop in the constituency. That means the possibility of freight and passenger trains being able to pass each other. That, too, will involve considerable work, including the construction of a line close to the back gardens of many of my constituents. I want to place that on record because, when we discuss practicalities and implications, it is possible that the lives of many people will be disrupted in the short term for the greater good.
	If the Bill is successfully piloted through Parliament and gets on to the statute book, and construction work begins in 2007, 2008 or 2009 in my constituency and others, it will have an impact on many people. There are concerns about adequate shielding from noise and construction work, the times of day when the work will be undertaken, shielding from lighting to prevent people from being woken up or kept awake at all hours and the times when vehicles move materials backwards and forwards. All those matters will have an impact. Many other hon. Members will have similar worries when work is carried out in their constituencies. I therefore hope that the Committee can take those matters into account when it receives the many petitions and submissions that will doubtless arrive in the next few weeks.

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not turn her back to the Chair. All remarks are to the Chair.

Meg Hillier: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not make that mistake again.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend has referred to benefits for London. I hope that he agrees that constituents will gain in many parts of London, especially Hackney, where people will benefit from the clearing of the Liverpool Street throat. That will mean faster trains from Enfield and Chingford to that area. That is a great spin-off from Crossrail.

Mike Gapes: Yes, of course. After detailing my constituency's interests, I intended to explain that, despite the disruption that many constituents face, there will be enormous benefits.
	In east London, there is a problem with overcrowding on the Central line. I was on a train that was going into Liverpool Street station this morning, before I transferred to the Jubilee line at Stratford, where I can be guaranteed to get a seat. I certainly could not get one when I squeezed myself into a crowded carriage at Ilford station at about 7.30 this morning. That also applies at 8.30 and at 9.30; there is always pressure on that line into Liverpool Street.
	One of the consequences of Crossrail will be to increase capacity. It will also mean that people do not have to get out of the trains from Shenfield at Liverpool Street; they will be able to go beyond it and across London. They will no longer have to decant themselves on to the Central line, the District line or the Jubilee line, or perhaps go round the Metropolitan line to get on to the Northern line. There will be fantastic improvements. Crossrail will cut travel times across our city and reduce stress and disruption for many people.

Lee Scott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Crossrail will increase not only capacity but the regeneration of the London borough of Redbridge, in which both our constituencies are situated? The impact on the areas surrounding us must also be considered, as we have heard from other hon. Members.

Mike Gapes: I agree with my neighbour. He and I have a big interesthe is still a member of the borough council, and I am a constituency MPin the regeneration of Ilford station. That station is linked to the regeneration proposed in the progressive Ilford plan, which the council is introducing on a cross-party basis. Crossrail will give us the opportunity to reposition the station entrance, to remodel the road system around the station, and to regenerate the centre of my constituency, which it greatly needs. Such spin-off benefits will occur not only in my constituency but elsewhere as a result of Crossrail.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman has noted that stations along the route will enjoy platform lengthening. Has he noticed, however, that not all of them will benefit from access for the disabled? Does he agree that this is a golden opportunity, with large sums of money being spent on refurbishing stations, and that disabled access should always be included; otherwise we shall be spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar?

Mike Gapes: I entirely agree, and I hope that that matter can be addressed as we consider the later stages of the Bill.
	I have referred to the underground system. The other important benefit will be the links to the docklands light railway, the East London line and other routes that come into and across the city. The Secretary of State said that Crossrail had to form part of an integrated national network. That relates not only to the lines that come in from hundreds of miles away but to those in the greater south-east region, with its many millions of people who need to cross our capital city either for work, leisure or other reasons. Crossrail will at last give us the opportunity to create sensible, integrated cross-London routing and connections, which we would not otherwise have.
	Those of us who are proud to have been born in this capital city, and to represent it in the House, know that it is important that the rest of the country should be behind these developments, just as it is behind the great achievement of winning the Olympics for London. Crossrail will provide people from all of the UK with the ability to travel more easily across our capital city. It will provide an integrated link between different parts of the country.
	Crossrail represents an historic opportunityan opportunity that we missed a decade ago. When I first came into this place in 1992, I remember asking Steve Norris questions about it. Later, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) dealt with the matter, followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar). Still later, it was the responsibility of the present Secretary of State for Defence, whose constituency name has changed but who, at the time, represented Motherwell. All kinds of Ministers have passed through during that period, and we had the frustration of not seeing the Bill introduced until right at the end of the previous Parliament. At last, we have a historic opportunity, which, as a country, we cannot afford to miss. This country needs Crossrail, London needs it, and millions of people will benefit from using it once it is built. I am therefore positive that we must go ahead.

Peter Robinson: I can see the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for Crossrail and I will certainly be among its supporters. He is also an enthusiast for the London Olympics, however, and given that, for instance, Newham is just emerging from disruptive construction work, what kind of disruption will there be in 2012 if we expect Crossrail to open in around 2013?

Mike Gapes: Clearly, there must be co-ordination. In relation to Pudding Mill lane station and other works, which are to be used both for the Olympics and Crossrail, planning of the engineering work will be necessary. Such issues need to be discussed before that work starts, and clearly, phasing is required. I am not an engineer or an expert, but I am sure that those who are experts can find ways of doing it. Obviously, it is vital that we have a successful Olympics, and that we have Crossrail built and running as soon as possible afterwards. We all need to recognise the realities and the practical issues, but I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of men and women to find a solution.

Andrew Rosindell: I admire the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the whole Crossrail scheme. He understands that the huge depot will be located in Romford. Would he be equally enthusiastic were it to be located in Ilford?

Mike Gapes: Regrettably, most of the land in my constituency seems to have been built on for housing and high-rise flats. I am not sure that we have a location as suitable as that in Romford. I hope, however, that discussions can take place about making sure that brownfield sites are used and that the needs of the community are taken into account. I am sure that the issue will be resolved in due course to the benefit of all of us in London, not least the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
	I have detained the House for long enough, and I want to allow other Members to speak. Crossrail is supported by a spectrum of organisations in London, by employees, trade unions, community organisations and commuters, and by a wide spectrum of interests of all kinds. Let us unite and make sure that it becomes a reality.

Tom Brake: The start of this debate was perhaps a little more muddled than I had anticipated, and I welcome the clarity that the Secretary of State brought.
	As hon. Members know, we have been waiting for this Bill for a long time. Speaking as a commuter in London for the past 25 years, commuting has been the best of times and the worst of times. The emotions that commuters experience range from relief when everything runs smoothly to frustration and, at the tail end, to exasperation when their train sits outside a station for 10 or 15 minutes without explanation.
	London's commuters and businesses want and have been desperate for Crossrail. Importantly, it is not an upgrade, an extension to an existing system or a tweak to an existing line. It is new capacity, which we need, and a new influx of spaces for London, which continues to grow, and the economy of which continues to grow. Crossrail also provides the necessary proof that we are not prepared simply to rest on the laurels of our Victorian forefathers for another century.
	Crossrail is not without its critics, who come in all shapes and sizes. They include community groups that will be directly affected and, perhaps more surprisingly, Network Rail and many other players in the rail industry. I shall say more about that shortly, but first I shall focus on four main subjects: responses to the Crossrail Bill environmental statement, the rail industry's fears about the impact on freight and passenger services, the impact on the Olympics, and Crossrail's funding.
	The responses to the environmental statement may be the best indicator of what local communities will think of the Bill. A range of issues were raised and it is difficult to say which are the most important, but I shall list just a few: availability of the statement, alternative alignments for the central tunnel, alternative schemes, construction working hours, noise and pollution, location of spoils, spoil mountains, and locations of shafts and work site. One of the most significant issues, however, was whether the proposals complied with the relevant European Union directives. I know that the Government took on board concerns about the process by extending the time frame and making information more readily available, but I hope the Minister will confirm that he is satisfied that the statement complies with those directives in all respects.
	Many responses questioned the availability of evidence that alternative alignments had been considered. That applied to alternative alignments through Spitalfields and Whitechapel. There was also concern about proposed sites such as the one at Hanbury street, which I know also concerns some Members, and about the disposal of spoil at Mile End. I am sure that many if not all Members have been lobbied about alternative schemes by organisations such as Superlink, and I shall say more about that as well. The environmental statement acknowledges the requirement for an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant, but many respondents assert that it has not been met.
	The Bill has months, if not years, of work behind it. There is little evidence to suggest that Superlink has devoted the same effort, time and expenditure to its proposals: indeed, it is clear that it has not done so. It has, however, raised issues with which I hope the Minister will deal in a way that addresses my concerns and those felt, I suspect, by other Members. One of the main issues is funding. I appreciate that this is a hybrid Bill and that we are not here to discuss funding, but it must be a source of anxiety, given the scale of the project and the fact that so little is known about how it will be financed.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: May I put to the hon. Gentleman the simple question that I put to the Conservative spokesman? Is he in favour of the whole of the scheme being underwritten by the state?

Tom Brake: I am happy to respond to that. The honest answer has to be no. A range of funding mechanisms are available to the Government. We know that discussions have taken place about increasing the business rate for businesses of a certain size for a restricted period. I had hoped that that would have been highlighted earlier when the Secretary of State opened the debate, but perhaps the Minister will comment when he replies.
	The funding issues are made more significant as a result of our successful bid for the Olympic games. To a certain degree, if not a great degree, there may be some competition for accessing available funds. The Superlink proposal challenges the Crossrail proposal in respect of regional links and making better use of services, drawing in commuters from further afield.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the all-party group had discussions with Superlink earlier this week. I have to say that, personally, I was not at all convinced of the viability of its proposals. Questions are raised about the reliability of a system that is so dependent on existing operators and existing lines. Another problem is that Superlink has not actually published a route, so I do not know whether it proposes to tunnel under my high street or under my main station.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. As I said a few moments ago, the Superlink proposal is much less developed than the Crossrail proposal, but it nevertheless raises some interesting questions, to which it would be appropriate for the Minister to respond.

Eric Pickles: It is not a question of Superlink failing to develop its proposal. It has a route: it is simply not prepared to tell the public what that route is.

Tom Brake: If Superlink indeed has a secret plan, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would be entirely appropriate for it to be made a matter of public record. We must be able to see what the proposals amount to and what the proposed route is. It would be entirely honest to proceed in that way.

Peter Luff: I am going to rise to the defence of Superlink. It does not have the resources of the main Crossrail promoters. It is a David and Goliath situation and, on this occasion, David is right and Goliath is wrong. It is difficult for Superlink to improve its proposals with the resources that it has at its disposal.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, we have to consider what is in the public domain, and we have a large body of evidence from Crossrail and a much smaller body of evidence from Superlink. The general feeling is, quite rightly, that we should proceed with the Crossrail scheme before us.
	Other issues raised in response to the environmental statement were working hours and noise. I hope that the Minister will comment briefly on them, particularly if, as some respondents claim, the noise levels will seriously breach World Health Organisation limits. I believe that I have covered the main points that emerged from the environmental statement.
	I want to move on to the helpful briefing from the industry, which many Members have received. It is worth highlighting the main organisations that contributed to itfreight operators, Network Rail, BAA and the Rail Freight Group. If I have any concern about the Crossrail Bill, it is that it has succeeded in uniting all those different groups in expressing such serious reservations about it. The briefing highlights the fact that more than 500,000 people travel on services provided by Great Western and Heathrow Express, while more than 200 freight trains use the rail corridors.
	The industry's view, with which I am sure all Members agree, is that Crossrail should be integrated in, and operated as part of, the national networkthe Secretary of State gave some reassurance on that pointand that it should be subject to the existing regulatory framework and managed by Network Rail within the existing operational structure. It believes that amendments will be required to recognise the rights of existing rail users, to ensure that there is sufficient capacity for existing and future rail users and to safeguard the independence of the Office of Rail Regulation. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that no such amendments will be required, as the Government already intend those points to be covered by the development of the Bill.The industry has specific concerns about the Bill's impact. There will be a new-build project, similar to the channel tunnel rail link, and a major construction project around existing rail services. The Minister will not be surprised that the industry's solution involves Network Rail taking responsibility for changes to the existing infrastructure, although the new-build could be handled separately. There are great concerns about fragmentation, a theme that has run through many contributions, although to give him his due, the Secretary of State has partly addressed them. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, the industry has concerns about the operation of Crossrail and its integration with the existing network. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy the House that those concerns are over-stated.
	I have a few further points. A huge amount of work will be required for the Olympics. I understand that the Olympic team, the Crossrail team, Transport for London and the Mayor's office are all working closely together to ensure that there is proper integration and that the major works for Crossrail are not undertaken precisely when we need the transport network running smoothly in London. However, there is concern that the Crossrail Bill and the London Olympics Bill take different approaches to the Office of Rail Regulation.
	Clause 22 of the Crossrail Bill states that the ORR has an overriding duty to facilitate the operation of Crossrail to a specific date, whereas the London Olympics Bill requires the ORR only to
	exercise the functions assigned or transferred to it . . . in a manner which will facilitate the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the London Olympics.
	Those seem to be different priorities, so I hope the Minister will address that point.
	The longest part of my speech should have dealt with how the scheme will be funded, but there is little to say on that significant point. We know that on 26 June Goldman Sachs and Lexiconapparently, a corporate finance boutique, although I am not sure that we need a boutique to take charge of the matterhave been selected to advise the Government on the funding of Crossrail. An article on the subject states that the funding structure will be complicated,
	with the possibility of a special London business rate being levied to help finance it.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the great concerns of small and medium enterprises about a possible levy of 1.5 or even 3 per cent. on business rates. Does he agree with their proposal that the levy should be proportionate to the likely benefit to them?

Tom Brake: That is an interesting point, although I am not sure how easy it would be to establish the benefits that businesses might or might not derive. We certainly need an indication of the level at which the levy will apply. How large will a business have to be before it has to contribute? Regrettably, little is said about funding.
	The Bill is welcome and long overdue. It has the   potential to transform an unexceptional public transport system in London into a world-beating one. However, there is consensus among Opposition parties and other partners that the measure will require detailed scrutiny and that its remit must be allowed to extend to issues such as integration. Taxpayers, especially London-based taxpayers, whether business or private, will be paying for the project for many years to come. London has already had one millennium dome inflicted on it; it cannot afford another. Nor can it afford a 15-mile stretch of tunnel that improves services for London's commuters at the expense of the rest of the country.
	The Bill is embarking on what promises to be an epic parliamentary journeya bit of a rollercoaster. We must ensure that it arrives at its destination improved and able to deliver a greatly enhanced transport system for Londoners and other commuters alike. If we do not do so, it could suffer the same fate as its predecessor 15 years ago and be stifled at birth.

Nick Raynsford: I start by drawing attention to an interest that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests, as deputy chairman of the Construction Industry Council.
	I am pleased to support the Second Reading of the Bill, which is hugely important to the future of transport in London. Transport is widely recognised as London's Achilles heel. It regularly features as one of the downsides of life in what is otherwise recognised as one of the most vibrant and successful cities in the world.
	The problem of poor transport in London reflects continuing failure over much of the second half of the last century to invest adequately in transport infrastructure. As the Secretary of State rightly reflected in his speech, there must be severe worries about London's future economic success if that inheritance of under-investment in transport is not made good. That is one of the key factors that we should bear in mind.
	Where new investment in public transport has been made, notably the Jubilee line, it has proved resoundingly successful in opening up formerly depressed and disadvantaged parts of London and easing congestion on existing transport links. Developments in areas such as Southwark, Canary Wharf, north Greenwich, Canning Town and Stratford have all been enormously helped by the new Jubilee line. Crossrail has similar potential to ease congestion in central London and to support new development and regeneration, not least in the Thames Gateway area, which will be served by two links from Liverpool Street, one north of the river to Shenfield, the other passing through docklands south of the river to Abbey Wood.
	The scheme is not a new one. As we all know, it was first proposed in 1989, about 16 years ago, and progress has been painfully slow. Why is that? We all know that it is because of the cost. The scheme is highly expensive, depending on two new tunnels bored through central Londonmajor engineering works that have been conventionally costed at about 10 billion, but as the Secretary of State commented, the likely out-turn figures may be between 15 billion and 16 billion. That inevitably poses important and difficult questions about how the costs should be met, and specifically what the balance should be in the contributions respectively of the fare-paying users of the service, the general taxpayer and the business interests that stand to gain, some very significantly, from the project.
	The scope for substantial increases in values of property and of development sites adjoining and surrounding stations is increasingly understood. How best to recover a proportion of that planning gain is less well understood. In my view, it is essential for us to look carefully at this, in respect of Crossrail and other new rail and infrastructure developments, because I believe that this holds the key to making possible development that might otherwise not be regarded as economic.
	What is not, in my view, sustainable is the defeatist notion that because of the scheme's high cost, further delay is inevitable or even desirable. We have already seen too long a delay in bringing forward the Crossrail scheme. Further cost-driven delay would be not just a mistake but counterproductive, as the ultimate costs of delivering an essential element for the resolution of London's transport problems would be even higher.
	A similar mistake to which, unfortunately, the scheme has already been subject, is the false economy of eliminating necessary and desirable elements so as to reduce the cost. That has occurred with the Woolwich station, which was an integral part of the earlier proposals, but which has been deleted from the current schemealbeit with the site of the station still safeguardedpurely for cost-saving reasons. If ever there was an illustration of the penny wise, pound foolish mentality, this is it.
	Woolwich is a major transport hub for a significant area of south-east London and is the focus of ambitious regeneration plans. Badly hit by the recessions of the 1980s and early 1990s and the decline of the traditional heavy industry that was the source of Woolwich's prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries, it is at last beginning to see revival, with successful regeneration of the former Woolwich arsenal site. That incipient recovery would be given a huge boost by a new station involving rapid transport links to central and west London. The regeneration benefits of a Crossrail station at Woolwich are enormous.
	Not only would that opportunity be lost if the scheme progressed without a station at Woolwich, but there would be very serious transport disadvantages. There would be literally no stations over a six-mile section of the railway between Custom House and Abbey Wood. Furthermore, potential passengers from a wide swathe of south-east London would have no easy point of access to Crossrail. The only south-east London station would be Abbey Wood, which is not well placed to meet the needs of travellers from much of the Greenwich and Lewisham areas, and does not have the benefit of being a major transport hub, as is a Woolwich.
	Supporters of Crossrail in south-east London to whom I have spoken in recent months are almost unanimous in recognising the very substantial transport and regeneration benefits of a Woolwich station. Most are astonished at the proposal that the trains should pass underneath Woolwich without stopping, when there is a very suitable location for a station already safeguarded.
	Those of us who represent the London borough of Greenwich are sadly familiar with short-sighted thinking of that nature on previous infrastructure projects. The original Jubilee line proposal did not include a station at North Greenwich. Without it, the regeneration of the former British Gas site, derelict and heavily polluted, would never have taken place, with 12,500 new homes now being built on that sitea major contribution to the Thames Gatewayand the millennium dome. Whatever people feel about the millennium domeI think particularly of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who made a predictably negative comment, probably not thinking about itthis project has had a huge impact on the regeneration of formerly derelict and abandoned industrial land, and the dome will provide a magnificent site for the gymnastics in the Olympic games in London in 2012. None of that would have happened if there had not been a station at North Greenwich. Fortunately, common sense prevailed. The North Greenwich station was built and it has been not just a catalyst for regeneration, but is proving to be a thriving transport hub.
	A few years later we went through an eerily similar process with the docklands light railway extension to Greenwich and Lewisham. Believe it or not, one of the cost-cutting proposals before that scheme got the go-ahead was to eliminate the station at Cutty Sark, one of London's most popular tourist destinations. Once again, our community in Greenwich had to run a high-profile campaign to reverse that false economy. Fortunately, we won. Cutty Sark station is now one of the most heavily used on the DLR network and the very idea of DLR trains passing underneath that site but not stopping is self-evidently ludicrous.
	I must question the sense of the Department for Transport in once again proposing to eliminate a very significant station in the borough of Greenwich as a cost-cutting measure. Conspiracy theoristsI am not onemight suspect a vendetta against our part of London. I prefer to attribute this to a cock-up rather than to a conspiracy. That is why I tabled an amendment instructing the Select Committee to have regard to the benefit of a station in Woolwich and its economic, transport and regeneration implications. I was surprised and a little disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State express a rather negative view of that amendment. I can see no possible reason why the Select Committee should not consider the merits of a station at Woolwich and I do hope that when the Under-Secretary winds up he will make it clear that it is reasonable and proper for the Select Committee to consider this proposal as part of its consideration of the Bill.
	I shall briefly raise two points before concluding. The issue of conflict with freight and other users of the railway has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). It is a very important issue and we have a specific concern about south-east London. A very large aggregates depot, which serves the Thames Gateway area and is likely to be a major source of aggregates for the Olympics and Crossrail as well as the Thames Gateway development, is sited in my constituency near the Angerstein junction. It includes a freight link for very large quantities of aggregate brought in from the midlands by aggregate industries. Representatives of those industries have written to me, rightly expressing concern that their business could be affected by the proposals. It is not just a question of potential conflict for access to the track; there are also implications if reduced access were to lead to increased track access charges, which could make the rail transport of aggregates non-economic, in which case there would be a very substantial transfer of aggregate from rail to road, with huge environmental implications. Those issues need to be looked at very carefully indeed.

Tom Brake: A rail freight statement published today says that the Government will work with the freight industry to understand its needs when setting the strategy for the rail network. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on how that is working in relation to Crossrail.

Nick Raynsford: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman regretted not having asked that question in his speech and is now trying to get me to do his work. I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to look very closely at the issues of access to the total railway, to ensure that there is the continued opportunitythe importance of which I have emphasisedof freight access to carry aggregates into one of the biggest development sites in the south of England, without that being frustrated by access problems to the track and an unwelcome transfer of aggregate from rail to road.
	Finally, I shall say a few words about the timetable for the Crossrail works and the interface, in more senses than one, with the London Olympic games. Two major infrastructure projects on that scale will undoubtedly put pressure on the capacity of the construction industry. There are implications for prices, skills and general capacity issues. There are also conflicts relating to one or more sites where works would need to be undertaken for both Crossrail and the Olympics. Those difficulties will need to be carefully addressed, but I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not allow these challenges to be used as an excuse for further substantial delay in the Crossrail project.
	In last week's issue of New Civil Engineer, the former chief executive of Cross London Rail Links Ltd., Norman Haste, is quoted as calling for a debate on whether construction of Crossrail should be delayed until after the Olympics. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that while it is absolutely right that the implications for the timetabling of these two massively important schemes must be considered carefully and must be effectively co-ordinated, it would imply a serious loss of nerve and confidence if Crossrail, which has already been 16 years in gestation, were to be kicked into touch for a further seven.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give the House some reassurance on those issues tonight, as well as the reassurance that I sought earlier on the Woolwich station. With those caveats, I am happy to support Second Reading.

George Galloway: Owing to my special relationship with the Labour Whips earlier in my parliamentary life, I served in quick succession on the Committees that considered the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill and then the King's Cross Railways Bill, which was the longest running railway Bill since Isambard Kingdom Brunel. When I stepped off those great sets of parliamentary proceedings, it was my intention never to return to vast infrastructural projects again, but my detour to east London at the last general election places me slap bang in the middleindeed, the epicentreof the controversy that these proposals will cause, for my constituency is more seriously affected than any other.
	The House is full of Members this evening who support Crossrail as the rope supports the hanging man. I want to say, quite bluntly, that I just want to hang it. I am against it and will vote against it this evening for reasons that I hope to make clearreasons such as those adduced by the secretary of the Woodseer and Hanbury residents association in my constituency, who wrote:
	Crossrail is a project that will never pay for itself. The 2002 estimate of 15 billion is likely to cost 20 billion by the time it is built, especially if it is delayed until after the Olympic gamesthe cost of 40 new hospitals or more than 400 new schools.
	Of course, the cost could be very much greater than 20 billion.
	Crossrail is a five-day commuter service that will primarily benefit the City, but cause unnecessary harm to London's communities from the east end to Mayfair. The country, particularly London, will subsidise a suburban railway for ever, and the residents and small businesses of my constituency will pay the greatest price for a service designed to connect Canary Wharf to Heathrow airport.
	MPs are being asked to vote for the Bill even though the finances for the Crossrail scheme are not even being presented to Parliament. There can be no other country in the world that would seriously pass a Bill in its Parliament for a project that might cost 20 billion or more with the derisory amount of time that the Bill has been given by the Government this evening devoted to the issue of who will pay for it. I suspect that the public will end up underwriting a very considerable amount of the cost.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, mentioned the millennium dome. In fact, this project might turn out to be 20, 25 or 30 millennium domes. Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) for the millennium dome, which he says will be a wonderful gymnastics hall for a couple of weeks in a few years' time, it will end up, of course, as the most expensive publicly funded super-casino in world history.
	If taxpayers pay for the railway for the next 30 years, sacrificing other projects, it should have the highest environmental and health impact standards and should not openly violate human rights. Crossrail has not properly considered the risk to human safety. It has failed to adopt the multi-modal approach originally demanded by the then Minister of State. That brings me to the point that I made in our preliminary debate, on which I hope that the Minister will now be able to advise the House.
	At 12 o'clock today, there was still not tabled in the papers for these proceedings the very serious matter of a barrister's legal opinion that Members are being asked to vote for something that is illegal. I refer to the paper submitted by Bindman and Partners. I shall read from the letter that the WHRA sent to the Bill team:
	We have noted a serious omission in the tabled papers as part of the Government's responses. It does not include a letter from . . . Bindmans . . . You may be aware that the letter raises serious legal matters in relation to the Crossrail Bill . . . Please could you provide reasons for the omission of the letter from tabled papers as this prevents MPs from considering serious issues about procedure and compliance with the EIA and human rights obligations.
	I am ready to allow the Minister to intervene now if he is able, as he promised, to indicate why those papers are not among those tabled for these proceedings today. I see that he intends to remain sedentaryso perhaps later we will be informed of why that information, which goes right to the heart of the judicial review that will inevitably occur, is not before Members today, even though it should be.
	I am conscious of the fact that many Members want to speak, but if time permitted me, I would demonstrate in detail that there is no doubt that Crossrail has not produced systematic comparisons of alternatives, which it is obliged by law to do. It is legally required to consider alternatives, to supply information requested by the public and to allow them an opportunity to comment to ensure compliance with the environmental impact assessment directive and human rights provisions.
	Crossrail appears not to have considered any alternative route alignments between Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf. Crossrail has not considered any option without Whitechapel station. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) misstated the position among my electorate. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that we do not want a station at Whitechapel. In so far as there will be a station at Whitechapel, it will cost about 200 million, forcing cost-cutting measures elsewhere in the project, which will impact on the placing of the tunnelling and other engineering work that is required.
	Let me volunteer something to the Minister: he should drop the Whitechapel station from the proposals. We do not need the Whitechapel station. Whitechapel has a perfectly adequate underground station at the moment. Moreover, it will be substantially overhauled by London Underground by 2009an overhaul that would almost certainly be delayed if the Bill is passed and if a Crossrail station is built at Whitechapel.
	A Whitechapel station will be a disbenefit to us, not only for the reason that I have stated, but for another reason, which is a source of great anger on this subject in my constituency. A vast number of people commute into the Tower Hamlets to work and then commute out again. There are huge areas adjacent to Tower Hamlets where local people cannot get a job. There are great citadels of wealth in Canary Wharf and the City of London, with hardly a local person working in them. In the City of London, where tens of thousands of people work, there are only 88 Bangladeshis working in white collar jobs. Less than 10 per cent. of the people who work in Canary Wharf come from Tower Hamlets, and no one is able to give us a demographic breakdown of that 10 per cent. We already have a problem with local people not being able to get jobs in the area, and a Crossrail station at Whitechapel will merely make that problem worse.
	We understand from evidence that the six sites in Spitalfields were considered without environmental data and without proper consultation, contrary to article 1.5 of the EIA directive. Crossrail has failed to justify interference with the property rights of residents or shown any proper consideration of alternative alignments, contrary to human rights provisions. As the benchmark route and the location of work sites in Spitalfields is likely to cause significant harm, we ask the Ministerthis was asked of him on 27 June in questions that were handed to him, and I hope that he will answer some of them soonhow will Crossrail remedy that error? Why were alternatives, such as tunnelling from both ends, not produced until after the deposit of the Bill and the production of the environmental statement?
	I say from my great experience, to which I referred earlier, that there is no engineering reason why the tunnel cannot be dug from both ends. The only reason is financial, because Crossrail wants to save the money that it would cost to dig from both ends. In that case, I demand a cost-benefit analysis, because that what Crossrail will save by digging from only one end will be paid for overwhelmingly by my constituents through damage to their businesses, their property rights, their environment, their health, and in many other ways. The possibility of tunnelling from the ends instead of going through Spitalfields was produced after the environmental statement and after it was demanded by residents, who are not engineers. We want to know why alternatives were not considered and compared before the benchmark alignments were chosen, because those alignments will undoubtedly form the basis for any subsequent discussion and will be difficult to move.
	There are many other questions on the list of, I think, 20 that were given to the Minister, but I do not have time to adduce them all this evening. I hope that he will seriously consider them, however, because my overarching point is that Crossrail will absolutely devastate my constituency. It will have three major tunnelling sites, yet it is the only part of the whole route said that will be affected in that way. The reasons behind that are financially driventhey are not driven by any other consideration.
	For those who are not familiar with Spitalfields Banglatown, which is the area that we are talking about, it has one of the densest populations in the capital. They are overwhelmingly poor people, a substantial proportion of whom are from the ethnic minorities and so will be disproportionately affected by the proposals. Some 60 per cent. of the population of Spitalfields Banglatown are of Bangladeshi origin. A growing and visible Somali minority lives in the area and there is a small indigenous white community. There is also a new group of young, upwardly mobile professionals in the area, who moved there precisely because it was the area that it was, but for six or seven long years it will be a ground zero.
	I hope that I can convey to hon. Members the impact that Crossrail will have. It will be like a major bombing raid on the east end. There will be three major tunnelling sites and a 2 m wide conveyor belt will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for six years to carry spoil from the digging of those sites. It will go past people's housesinches from their windows in some cases, and feet away in others. Ten-tonne lorries will come and go through this small, densely populated, poor, disadvantaged and multiply deprived area at the rate of one every five minutes, with consequent dangers for children at local schools and the health of local peopleand male life expectancy in that part of London is already 6 per cent. less than that throughout London as a whole. Higher than average incidences of asthma, diabetes, blood pressure and other health problems are already present in this multiply deprived community, yet we are going to make a ground zero right in the middle of it that will devastate the community for yearsday and night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
	I will tell you my suspicion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as someone who has been the Member of Parliament for the constituency for only a few weeks. I suspect that the Government are doing this to our community because they would not dare do it to another community. They are doing to the east end what they would not dare do to the west end because they would not get away with it in the west end. The political representatives in the west end would raise such a hue and cry that it would be politically impossible to do such a thing. The highly educated and articulate people who know the way to lobby on such things would ensure that such action would not be taken.
	Our area was chosen because it was, politically speaking, a pushover. Until we dragged the local council into the fray with our political campaign, it was fully in favour of the Crossrail scheme. Until we dragged the then Member of Parliament into the fray due to our pressure, she was fully in favour of Crossrail. When they did enter the fray, they did so half-heartedly. Indeed, Tower Hamlets council is the origin of the reason for the station at Whitechapel, which, as I have already stated, we do not want because it will be a disbenefit to us, add to the cost and force certain engineering decisions upon us that will be disadvantageous. The council and the former Member of Parliament were not ready to stand up for local residents, which was why the Government chose this area, of all the areas, to be subjected to the demolitionthe ground zerothat they intend to visit, if they get away with it, on the multiply deprived people of my constituency.
	I do not want to leave the issue of the racial character of the community because it is important. Banglatown is a national treasure. It is an international tourist destination. In looking from around the world at London as a tourist destination, one of the things that people look at is Banglatown. I know very well, because I live just off Brick lane, that people come from all over the world, all over London and all over Britain to see the community, its restaurants, shops and mosques, and all the other things that make Banglatown the national and international treasure that it is.
	The Minister is a fair-minded man, so I hope that he will accept my invitation to come and meet the communities. Today, I met residents associations, the Brick lane business association, the ethnic minority enterprise project, the Banglatown restaurant association, the Bangladesh welfare association and the Chicksand residents association. Chicksand is one of the poorest estates in Britain, in an area in which some of the poorest people in Britain live, yet it will be at the epicentre of the epicentre. People will not be able to move on the Chicksand estate for 10-tonne truckswith their spoil flying in the wind, no doubtfor six long years, day and night, seven days a week.
	Well, things have changed. There is now a new political power in the area that is represented by my election victory. I tell the House that we intend to make this matter a major election issue in the run-up to the local council elections next May. We hopewe intendto be the administration in Tower Hamlets council just 10 months from now. If we are, Tower Hamlets council will no longer be a pushover.
	I promise the Minister that if we win control of Tower Hamlets council, it will use every means at its disposal, and all its resources, to try to stop such devastation being visited on local people, so he should factor that into his consideration. He should also factor into his consideration the fact that he is no longer dealing with a Member of Parliament who is a pushover. Many groups are already preparing for peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience to try to throw a spanner in the works, so all told, it would be better to give us a wide berth. We do not want the station. Give us a wide berth and go around us. Go along the river or go somewhere else. We do not want Crossrail. We are prepared to fight it and we will make it a very politically costly matter for the Government if they proceed along the route that they currently intend to follow.

John McDonnell: May I reinforce the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) that it would be usefulin fact, invaluableto have the Bindmans papers before us? It is the duty of the House to have them circulated this evening.
	I support the Bill because I take the view that the London transport system is in urgent need of expansion. I speak as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group and I shall also talk about constituency matters.
	Last year, almost 1 billion journeys were made on the London underground and, in the 10 years since 199495, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in mainline rail travel between London and the south-east and a 22 per cent. increase in mainline rail journeys in London itself. Our population as a city is predicted to grow by 700,000 by 2016, which will increase the demands on our rail infrastructure. During the gestation of Crossrail from the first Bill to this, my constituency has seen the development of Heathrow airport, with a fourth and now a fifth terminal. As a result of lack of investment in public transport, journeys by car, lorry and other vehicles to that airport are making my constituency the most air polluted in the country.
	Concerns about the timing of the construction of Crossrail have been mentioned. It is disappointing that we cannot plan major projects such as the London Olympics and Crossrail to coincide. However, I wholeheartedly welcome some parts of the Bill. Clause 34, for example, disapplies the prohibition in section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 on public sector operators providing passenger services. That is a major commitment to public service operation. One might even describe it as an advance for democratic socialism, but I do not want to go too far.
	There are a number of concerns about the Bill, such as network control. When we debated the Railways Bill  earlier this year, we identified unnecessary fragmentation and lack of clear lines of accountability and control as the worst features of the privatisation of  rail. The Railways Act 2005 therefore gave Network Rail additional responsibilities for railway infrastructure. That was reinforced in the Warwick agreement between the Labour party and the trade unions, which clearly stated that Network Rail was to oversee all rail engineering work. I would welcome ministerial confirmation that Network Rail will have responsibility for the oversight of maintenance and renewals on Crossrail.
	Concern has been expressed about freight and it is important that we ensure that Crossrail will bring environmental benefits. We are therefore looking for assurances that freight currently moved by rail on the great eastern and great western main lines is not put in jeopardy. Crossrail could temporarily cut off a number of freight terminals on both those lines and lead to the closure of the rail-connected concrete plant in Royal Oak. It would be useful to have a ministerial assurance that freight currently moved by rail will not lose out because of the Crossrail project.
	Mention has been made of the costs of the project. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that, given that the legislation will make such a hefty requirement of the public sector should costs fall on it, it is extraordinary that the Bill does not identify where funding will come from. I suggest that the rail proposal will significantly benefit London's business community and that the project therefore provides the Government with an excellent opportunity to explore some innovative ways of meeting the Crossrail costs from the private sector. The very principle that those who benefit should contribute to the cost of the scheme should be in the legislation.
	Asking businesses to pay their fair share towards transport projects is already the norm in countries from France to the United States of America. Research published in June 2004 on behalf of the passenger transport executive showed, for example, that the city of Lyons can raise more than 100 million a year from a dedicated payroll tax that can be levied on all firms, both public and private, at up to 1.75 per cent. of the company payroll. Lyons has a population of about 1.4 million; by comparison, London's population is in excess of 7 million. A payroll tax levied at, say, 1.63 per cent. would raise more than 500 million a year. Over five years that would amount to 2.5 billion towards the cost of the Crossrail project in the capital.
	As the railway will greatly assist the airport, I suggest that we look to BAA for a contribution. At its annual general meeting on Friday, BAA announced profits of more than 500 million. Surely it can pay something towards a project of major benefit to the airport. In Paris, there is also a levy on employers and half the revenue raised from traffic and parking fines goes to transport investment. The RMT-commissioned Funding London Underground report last year looked at the state and the city of New York, which fund grants and subsidies accounting for 46 per cent. of the metropolitan transportation authority funding. A large proportion of subsidy comes from hypothecated taxation, which in principle at least is targeted at non-fare paying beneficiaries of the scheme in the private sector.
	Mention has been made by my hon. Friends of the increase in land values. Now is the ideal time to explore the concept of land value taxation on those who will benefit directly from the development of Crossrail. Experience of the Jubilee line demonstrates just how land values and property prices can soar in an area and provide an adequate source of financing.
	In London, we have long complained about lack of investment in the manufacturing of rolling stock. In the past few years, there have been significant job losses in the rail manufacturing and maintenance sector at sites including Birmingham Washwood Heath, Eastleigh and Derby, as well as in the capital. It is regrettable that the new high-speed trains for the proposed integrated Kent franchise will be built in Japan and not in Britain. Crossrail gives us the opportunity to kick-start a recovery in the manufacturing of railway stock in the UK as a railway workshop. I therefore encourage the Government to bring all their influence to bear to ensure that new rolling stock for Crossrail is manufactured and maintained in Britain.
	Having objected to the original Crossrail scheme, largely because of the implications of the development of the Heathrow express for my constituents, I should say that such objections no longer exist in my constituency, except in companies that want some certainty about the development of the project. Companies and homes have been blighted for a long time as a result of the proposals. We desperately need a decision in principle and on the time scale. We want clarification of precisely which areas of land will be affected and for what period. That will allow companies such as Leemark Engineering and H. G. Timber in Hayes and Lafarge Aggregates to plan in the short term for the length of their operation on their present site and, if necessary, in the long term, for relocation.

Ken Purchase: My hon. Friend rightly talks of the need for a decision in principle because uncertainty is a problem, but does he agree that, before that can be taken, people who might support the Bill need to know about the ongoing revenue consequences of the capital programme? Until that is known, how can we expect people to support the programme with hard cash?

John McDonnell: That is a good pointthe issue needs to be addressed in the ongoing debate. The benefits to a number of constituencies, to the environment and to the economy of London and the south-east and of the country as a whole, warrant some public sector commitment to the ongoing revenue funding, and that should come from public taxation. I accept that there might be growth in the subsidy that will be required, but that burden can be borne by business and through public taxation in the long term. That is why I urge the Government to look now at both the capital and revenue costs and establish a system such as those across Europe and the United States that enable projects to be adequately funded from hypothecated taxation.
	The issue of certainty leads me to that of compensation. There is reference in the Bill to the usual compensation for compulsory purchase. I hope that we have a debate on the Floor of the House about the compensation that will be awarded to people for protection of their homes following any environmental impact and for any relocation. I am concerned that the levels that were discussed when the issue was first considered 15 years ago will not be adequate to meet the demands of relocation, or even the costs of short-term operation, as affected by transportation issues and other environmental impacts of the construction of the rail.
	Overall, I welcome the Bill and look forward to the opportunity for my constituents and me to make representations to the Committee. I hope that the Government will address the significant issue of funding that I have raised and that we can achieve a consensus across London, even if we do have to bypass Bethnal Green and Bowand I would fully understand why.

Theresa May: I have long been a supporter of Crossrail. Indeed, I believe that Crossrail is a very good idea. However, the handling of the Bill so far suggests that Crossrail is a very good idea that is going badly wrong, in several ways. First, it is going wrong in relation to the impact on services on the main rail network; secondly, it is going wrong in relation to the interaction of Crossrail with the main rail network; and, thirdly, it is going wrong in relation to the impact that it will have on the principle of independent economic regulation, because of the powers that the Bill will give to the Secretary of State to give priority to Crossrail over and above the judgment made by the Office of Rail Regulation.
	I have a particular interest in the Bill because, as several hon. Members have mentioned, the proposed western terminus for Crossrail is Maidenhead, the main town in my constituency. My constituents will be affectedboth those who live in Maidenhead, by the works, and those who commute from Maidenhead. Other parts of my constituency will also be affected.
	I was comforted by the Secretary of State's remark that it would be open to the Committee that will be set up to look at any issues raised by petitioners against the Bill and that the instruction to be given by the House will merely be guidance to the Committee about the areas that it can cover. However, I am concerned to learn that the legal advice is that the instruction is just that and that it will not be possible for the Committee to consider matters not in the instructionspecifically, the termini.

John Hayes: As I understand it, the legal opinion is that the Committee can look at matters that are within its terms of reference, which encompass the Bill and the instruction. In those circumstances, it is hard to see how the Committee will be able to consider the issues of Reading, the Olympics or the wider implications for the rail network, both freight and passenger, that that the Crossrail project may have.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. Several of us were comforted by the comments made by the Secretary of State earlier, but if the Committee will not be able to consider the location of the terminiand whether the line should be extended to Readingit will make a mockery of the Secretary of State's remarks this afternoon and of the Government's intention to consider whether to safeguard the line through to Reading. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position when he winds up.

Peter Luff: It may assist my right hon. Friend and the House if I say that I have sought advice on that point. The clear advice that I have received is that the instruction is precisely thatan instructionand it would not be possible for the Chairman of the Committee to go beyond Maidenhead in consideration of the Bill. That is the advice at present, and that is why I would like a debate on the instruction, but we are denied that. It is important that the Minister give a definitive undertaking on that point when he winds up, because otherwise I will be obliged to vote against the instruction.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister will give a definitive view on that issue, but I also hope that he will go further. If the legal advice that my hon. Friend mentions is indeed correct, and the Committee will not be able to go beyond the specific instruction from the House, I hope that the Minister will tell us how representations can properly be made in the debate on the Bill on the possibility of extending the line to Reading.
	The Crossrail line could be of enormous benefit to my constituents, but the services proposed would unfortunately ensure that they would receive a worse train service than they currently receive. The extension of the line to Reading could provide benefits, not only for my constituents using the Maidenhead and Twyford stations and the two branch lines to Henley and to Marlow and Bourne End, but for the constituents of my   hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). The hon. Gentleman earlier made an unkind reference to Maidenhead when he said that rail passengers could not connect to anywhere from the town. It is true that there are not many places to connect to from Maidenhead, but one can connect to Cookham, Furze Platt, Marlow and Bourne End [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their support for those wonderful places.
	The branch line will be affected by the services, but the main line network will be particularly affected, because after Crossrail, Maidenhead station will receive only four services in peak hours. Far from having fast and semi-fast services direct to Paddington or stopping only at Slough, the services will in future stop at 10, 11 or 12 stations before Paddington. I have recently had a significant debate with First Great Westernindeed, I raised the matter in an Adjournment debateabout the fact that its December timetable last year extended the length of the journey from Maidenhead to Paddington from 20 or 21 minutes to 25 or 26 minutes. The Crossrail proposals would see that time double to 40 minutes or longer. The benefit of Crossrail to my constituents would be if one could take a fast or semi-fast service from Maidenhead to Paddington and then access the west end or the City without changing. If the journey to Paddington is on a stopping service, the benefit will be lost.
	I have described the impact on passengers from Maidenhead, but those who access Twyford station, either directly or by the branch line from Henley through Wargrave, will face an even worse problem. They currently enjoy up to seven services an hour in peak times, but that would be reduced to two services an hour under the Crossrail proposals. I noted that the Secretary of State said that Crossrail would bring benefits to the south-east. He also said that it would be wholly beneficial to suburban lines, but I have news for him. For Maidenhead and Twyford suburban lines, it will not be wholly beneficial.
	The Secretary of State also said that one need not worry about services to the west of London, because those went on the main line and Crossrail would go on the relief lines. The whole debate about the December timetable from my constituency has revealed that all the stopping services and the suburban services have been moved from the main line to the relief lines, and they will have to share those lines with Crossrail. It simply will not be possible for the services to be improved from what they are today. In fact, the services will deteriorate. I am therefore surprised by the categoric statements that the Secretary of State made earlier about the benefits of the proposal for everybody in the south-east. Taking the line to Reading would have significant benefits for my constituents, because those travelling from Twyford would be able to use the service, provided that the services to Paddington were fast or semi-fast.
	The biggest physical effect on my constituency would arise from electrification of the line, which would lead to gantries being built on Brunel's bridge at Maidenhead. That bridge remains the longest brick arch bridge in the world and it is part of our national railway heritage. The view across Brunel's bridge would be changed by the erection of electrification gantries. I have raised with Crossrail and Network Rail the possibility of a third rail system, but that is apparently out of the question because it would be far too expensive and the systems could not be mixed and matched along the line. However, I urge the Government to ensure that the debate about electrification includes consideration of innovative ways to ensure that the impact on Brunel's bridge is as light as possible. We recognise that there will be some impact, but Crossrail, sadly, has shown no desire to try to ensure that it reduces that impact as far as possible. That is an issue to which I shall return during consideration of the Bill.
	The Bill gives the railway the possibility of taking over Guards Club park. That means that lorries will be taken through a residential part of Maidenhead into a park that is used by families, including children. It is a major benefit to Maidenhead. Sadly, Crossrail has refused to consider innovative ways of accessing the work site at Brunel's bridge. For goodness' sake, it is over a river, and the park is next to a river. It would be possible to use the river to provide some access for the heavy materials that need to be moved in, and not bring them in by road through the park. I hope that that will be able to reduce the use of the park.
	There are two further points that concern me. The first point is whether Crossrail is part of the main rail network. My constituents have no desire to be part of the Mayor of London's transport scheme. The idea that Transport for London could take responsibility for the line through to its terminus at Maidenhead fills me and, I believe, most of my constituents with horror. I trust that the Minister will be able to give us a definitive statement that the project will be part of the main rail network and that it will not be handed over wholly to the Mayor of London, for him to increase his orbit and ambit through the west of London on to Maidenhead.
	Central to whether the project is part of the main rail network is the question of independent economic regulation. I challenged the Secretary of State on that question. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to give Crossrail priority over other rail services. At present, the situation is clear: there is a balance of priorities that is struck by an independent economic regulator, which is the Office of Rail Regulation. I have a tinge of sadness that we have moved away from the previous rail regulator, Mr. Tom Winsor, who was known for his trenchant comments to the Government about what was happening on the railways, to the Office of Rail Regulation, which I fear that few people have heard of since it took over from Mr. Winsor.
	In January 2004, in a statement on the future of the railways, the Secretary of State said:
	the principle of independent economic regulation for the railways is essential and will be central to our proposals.[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c.1078.]
	Those were proposals for the future of the rail network. Sadly, the Bill is entirely contrary to that statement. The Bill will take Crossrail away from the Office of Rail Regulation and enables priority to be established outside of that regulator. That has implications not only for Crossrail and the railways but for independent economic regulation throughout the raft of industries and utilities in this country. I urge the Government to think again on that aspect of the Bill.
	Crossrail could be of enormous benefit to my constituents, but what is proposed in the hybrid Bill that is before us is not of benefit to them. I trust that, over the next year or more, we will be able to ensure that the Crossrail that is built is one that reflects a good idea and is of benefit to the south-east, and not the proposal that, sadly, is going badly wrong today.

Jon Cruddas: I echo the support for the Bill offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who spoke about economic development in the east of London. A durable Thames Gateway requires integrated transport links that offer access to town centres and job generation sites. Crossrail is to be welcomed as it will develop a rail spine for the London Thames Gateway, providing fast-track links between London's three central grid districts of Canary wharf, the City and the west end. Crossrail is needed to help manage the huge population movements into and within the boundaries of the capital. I shall focus primarily on that important element in my contribution. However, concerns about the present route and its impact on local communities deserve to be discussed and the very nature of the hybrid Bill will allow those detailed concerns to be considered. It is to be hoped that compromises can be found to accommodate affected residents, including those whom I represent.
	Let us consider Crossrail in terms of population movements into London. London's population stands at about 7.3 million, just short of the combined population of Rome, Paris, Vienna and Brussels. As far as I can ascertain, it is the only major European capital that is growing. The Mayor of London's plan estimates a further population growth of about 800,000 by 2016. That is about an extra 17,000 people net per year. London is seen increasingly as a world city, with about 50 separate national and ethnic communities scattered across it and about 300 languages spoken.
	According to figures provided by the Office for National Statistics for the period 19922003, annual inflows of international migrants into the capital more than doubled from under 100,000 to about 200,000. At the same time we can assume that many of the recently estimated stock of illegal workers are resident in the capital. We do not know whether the latest survey estimate of about 570,000 such individuals includes independants. We can assume that London retains a disproportionate number of those currently within the asylum application processfor example, a high proportion of the 280,000 individual failed asylum seekers, as estimated by the ONS. These figures do not appear to include dependants. In short, the dynamic at work in terms of population flows into the capital is extraordinary, but it remains unquantifiable in terms of the real levels of immigration and economic activity. It can be said, however, that the figure of 7.3 million is likely to be a severe underestimate.
	Against that backdrop we can consider population movements within London. The extraordinary movement of people into the city requires a suitable public policy response in respect of public services and resource distribution. Yet we must assume that the baseline for public policy making severely understates the number of people living in the city. Rapid immigration has occurred alongside dramatic inflation in property prices, which has pushed immigrant groups, both legal and illegal, into the poorest parts of the capital and those areas with the lowest-cost housing.
	My constituency sits at the centre of the Thames Gateway. It covers much of the London riverside areathat is part of the gatewayand has a massive amount of brownfield land. It has the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London. There is a growing private housing market through the consequential effects of the right-to-buy policy. Across the London riverside area, and excluding Barking town centre, we anticipate building about 20,000 new homes over the next 10 to 15 years. Population growth estimates range up to about a 60,000 population increase in the small borough over the next 10 years.
	Before that development, the population was already increasing dramatically through the dynamic internal population movement within the capital. The trend decline in the borough's population has dramatically reversed over the past few years. There are some estimates that the population has increased by anything up to 20,000 since 2001. This in turn is likely to lead to an underestimate of population movements locally in terms of both illegal migrants and those within the asylum system. Those facts are useful in terms of considering some of the macro-economic London-wide considerations in the Crossrail debate.
	The only way in which we can manage population movements into the capital is to seek to rebalance the city and open up the east side. The economic centre of gravity must move to the east as we, in effect, tilt the capital. That is why the Thames Gateway debate is so important. The interest in it has been reinforced over the past couple of years by the strategy of national Government who have established the Thames Gateway as a national priority, with its own dedicated Cabinet Sub-Committee, MISC 22. That policy is obviously conditioned by the housing crisis in the south-east.

Mark Field: How does the hon. Gentleman believe that there will be a shift in the planned development in the Thames Gateway, which I think that we all support, much as it means the centre of gravity, as he rightly said, of London going eastwards? How does he feel that that will be affected by our winning the Olympic bid and the obvious focus of regeneration over the next seven years, specifically in the Lea valley?

Jon Cruddas: I was about to touch on that.
	It seems that Crossrail is an illustrative example of the infrastructural investment that is needed to the east side of the city to handle dramatic population movements into and within the city. It is needed also as a lever for other transport infrastructural links into the central spine that is thereby created.
	Business development and relocation, as well as the decanting of the population will result from the Olympic bid. I am part of the London riverside action group, which anticipates a great deal of business relocation as a result of the development of the Olympic site. All roads lead back to the transmission belt or the transport infrastructural network that is being developed across the east side of the city, the spine of which remains Crossrail. Because of population movements and the needs of the east side of town I was always in favour of Crossrail going through the royal docks, Barking, Dagenham and Rainham, rather than along the Shenfield line. That proposal disappeared a few years ago, but it is part of the joined-up strategy that we all seek.
	Returning to the dynamic of the housing market, growth is constrained across the economy because of the lower interest rate which, however, may ignite south- east house price inflation. As a result, a priority for the Government's macro-economic strategy is surely house building in the south-east. That would allow for medium-term economic growth, everything else being equal, accompanied by a lower rate of interest. Similarly our prospective entry into the euro, if anyone is still interested in that, is conditioned by applying the brake on the housing market in the south-east. If we are seeking both macro-economic inhibitors on growth and the management of the population growth in the capital, all roads lead eastwards. Nationally and in the offices of the Mayor of London, Crossrail is seen as the key infrastructural project needed to support macro-economic strategy and managed population growth. It will help to rebalance growth by supporting house building and simultaneously offer London a route map to manage its population within the capital's borders.
	For the Government and the Mayor the case for Crossrail rests on technical macro-economics and pan-London population issues. I look at the issue very differently, however, and regard Crossrail as offering a local case for infrastructure. The city's dynamics far exceed the ability of public policy and national Government to keep track of it, let alone get ahead. London is growing dramatically, and the official, lagged statistics do not even begin to tell the real story. The state tends to operate within static models of resource distribution on the basis of outmoded population statistics. Those formal statistics do not begin to quantify the real patterns of immigration, on which we tacitly rely to underpin the growth of public services and the private service sector in the capital. Immigration also builds the labour market flexibility so desired by the business community, as reflected in recent comments by the Governor of the Bank of England. Yet we hide away from the debate about immigration and its macro-economic consequences.
	The development of the Thames Gateway often appears to be a technical abstract debate conducted by the regeneration professionals, but in reality it is occurring in communities like mine as we speak. It is not some future blueprint for 2015 but a method for understanding the day-to-day momentum of the capital. Because the state is ill-equipped to deal with that dynamic as a result of lagged decision making and an underestimate of the population, huge tensions have developed. In my own constituency, for example, the local community is experiencing rapid transformation. It is growing and changing rapidly to help accommodate movements into and within the city. That change is taking place against the backdrop of a long-term legacyof underinvestment in public services and infrastructure together with patterns of enduring poverty. Fundamental tensions result from those legacies, contemporary changes and the sustainability of future developments under the banner of the Thames Gateway.

James Brokenshire: The proposed route of Crossrail runs north of the Thames Gateway. Given the need to assist with regeneration, does the hon. Gentleman agree that an earlier proposal for the route to run south of the area would help solve the transit issues that affect his constituency and my adjoining constituency?

Jon Cruddas: I agree, as I said earlier.
	The tensions in my community are manifest in the form of the far right and British National party activity. There have been five council by-elections in the past year, and the BNP have averaged 33 per cent. of the vote. Its members seek to pull the community apart, playing on its limited resources, great need and the rapid change that will continue in future. That is the context in which I view the debate on Crossrail. It is a test case for the Government's aim to build genuinely sustainable communities. That is why I preferred the original plan to build Crossrail along the north shore of the Thames Gateway through Barking, Dagenham and Rainham before looping round to the south of the Thames. That proposal has been lost, but if we are seeking to manage the huge population movements across the city within the capital's borders, the Shenfield line is not logical.

Eric Pickles: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Jon Cruddas: I am not sure why that proposal was abandoned. If our aim is achieve spatial economic policy making and an accompanying transport infrastructure, it would be interesting to know why that route was dropped in the debates that preceded today's decision.
	In my locality, we do not have a sustainable agenda because population movements far exceed resource distribution year on year against the backdrop of a difficult economic and social legacy. The debate about regeneration in the Thames Gateway needs to be presented anew, and with greater urgency. Over the past few years we have become preoccupied with debates about institutions, including the setting up of an urban development corporation and the role of the London Development Agency, the sub-regional regeneration partnerships and the boroughs, at the expense of the project's vision. We have become preoccupied with housing units as a result of the state's macro-economic concerns. Locally, that has contaminated the regeneration debate, especially as it has arisen alongside growing distributional tensions about resources as the community undergoes dramatic change.
	Three developments in the past two weeks may signal a change of direction in the development of east London. First, the successful Olympic bid will become a vehicle for driving resources into the east of the city. Secondly, the recent terrorist atrocities have allowed us to reconsider the vibrant and global nature of the city in which we live, its engine being immigration. Thirdly, the debate about Crossrail demonstrates what is needed, not for some future community, but for our dynamic city today. I hope that the cumulative effect of those three developments will initiate a new debate about economic development in east London that allows us to go back to the first principles of the vision that we are trying to achieve.
	Moving from the abstract to the specific, I shall focus on the concerns of my local community. It goes without saying that investments of this scale throw up genuine local concerns. A previous hybrid Bill, for example, led to concerns about the channel tunnel rail link, which goes underground in my constituency as it heads into the centre of town. The Crossrail Action Group has voiced many legitimate arguments about the location of the proposed depot in Romford. Although the depot is outside Dagenham, residents who live in Salcombe, Coombewood and Saville roads in my constituency have genuine concerns, especially about the increase in heavy goods vehicles using the local highways. Serious problems relate to road safety, and I am concerned that a deal may have been agreed between Havering council and Crossrail to amend the preferred route for HGV vehicles entering and leaving the proposed construction site at Westlands playing fields. That outcome is unacceptable to my local council and to me, as it would clearly increase the danger posed by traffic to schoolchildren travelling to and from Warren comprehensive school, of which I am a governor, as well as Warren junior and Furze infant schools. We must address such issues as the Bill proceeds, for example when the codes on construction practice are agreed and when the location of the depot in Romford is decided.

Andrew Rosindell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the full council of the London borough of Havering passed a resolution only two weeks ago strongly opposing all the Crossrail proposals, including one on that issue?

Jon Cruddas: I am aware of that. The borough of Barking and Dagenham supports the development of Crossrail, although it is concerned about some of the local implications of the re-routing of the HGV traffic that I mentioned away from some of the roads in the Romford area into Whalebone Lane North and the junction with the A12 in my constituency. We will have to work through those issues. Indeed, the Secretary of State gave responses that will ensure that we can work them through. I hope that accommodations and concessions can be made in the interests of all our constituents.
	Overall, Crossrail is vital to the UK and to London, and to the communities of east London. It is a key building block for managing the growth of the city and providing the infrastructure for effective strategic London planning over the next decades. I therefore strongly support the Bill and appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for bringing Isambard Kingdom Brunel into our considerations. My reading of schedule 8 suggests that technically the bridge that he built, which was such a triumph, and the bridge that was subsequently built to exactly the same design when the line was widened could be demolished, although I do not believe that the Secretary of State would condone such an act of vandalism.
	It is good that Brunel has been mentioned in the debate, as he built the first Crossrail. There is nothing new about what we are debating today. The first trains to go across London were Great Western trains, which went underground at Paddington and all the way to Aldgate. They were not viable and were withdrawn. I am sure that economic conditions in London have changed since then, but it is worth noting that there is nothing new about Crossrailwe have had it before.
	In principle, I support the idea of improving east-west rail links. Crossrail is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a difference to transport in the south-east, which could also benefit long-distance travellers, including those from my constituency, but if the country is to spend the kind of money envisaged by the Bill, we need to provide more than the Crossrail project offers. We all agree that we must do something. The project outlined in the Bill is something, therefore we must do that. That dangerous train of logic must not seduce us into thinking that the Bill automatically deserves our support tonight.
	I shall speak primarily about my constituents' interests. That is what I am here to do, and I am clear that the Bill is in direct contradiction to their interests. It is the end of all the dreams that we have in Worcestershire along the Cotswold line of improving the service to the level that we ought to have. Only last week, I believe, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), jointly with the chamber of commerce for Hereford and Worcester, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State asking for the track between Oxford and Worcester to be dualled all the way and for a better service. They should have done that when the Strategic Rail Authority's route utilisation strategy was up for grabs. That was the time to do that.
	If the Bill passes tonight in its current form, forget it. It is not worth spending the money on doing that because there will not be the capacity between Reading and Paddington for the additional services that we want. The Secretary of State spoke reassuringly about maintaining current service levels. Current service levels between Worcestershire and London are a scandal. They do not need to be maintained; they need to be dramatically improved. Since the new Adelante rolling stock has gone on to the First Great Western service, loadings have gone through the roof. It is standing room only on most trains. There is a market there crying out to be met, to take people off the roads and put them back on to the railways. Forget it, if the Bill passes.
	The Bill may well be an emperor, if not with no clothes, then with very few indeed. The aspect that could persuade me is the Reading-Maidenhead issue. If we could end the railway at Reading, not Maidenhead, with fast and semi-fast services instead of the ridiculous proposed crawling services beyond Paddington, I might be persuaded. I could happily get off a train at Reading, change to a semi-fast service into the centre of London, near where I wanted to be, but I am not prepared to get off a train at Reading, which I will almost certainly have to do, with fewer trains going through to Paddington, make a journey to Maidenhead or God knows where else, and then get on to the underground when I get to London. It is just not acceptable.
	We must consider the instruction to the Select Committee. I have raised the matter privately with the Secretary of State and he may by now be in a position to give definitive guidance. It is clear that the instruction is an instruction: it is what it says on the can. The Select Committee can do nothing but obey it. The Government are instructing the Select Committee not to consider anything beyond the terminus laid down in the Bill, which is Maidenhead. That means I must vote against the instruction, because it is fundamentally wrong. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will be able to give some more definitive guidance. I am operating on the best advice that I have had, which is clear and unequivocal.
	I hope the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) is listening in his office. He went away happy, thinking that he had got from the Secretary of State what he wanted, and that he could vote for the Bill and for the instruction tonight. He cannot. I know that the Secretary of State was giving his view in good faith. I have spoken to him and I am convinced that he was speaking in good faith, but I am not convinced that he was right. We need to consider the matter carefully.
	The Secretary of State gave some useful reassurances about the other aspects of the instruction, which I had hoped to invite the House to consider this evening, about the issues relating to the likely impact of the construction and operation of Crossrail on rail freight services and other rail passenger services, and the extent to which Crossrail should be planned, operated and regulated as an integral part of the national rail network. He said those were matters more properly left to the Standing Committee stage of the Bill. Because of Bill's hybrid nature, some of those have cross-reference to the private sector implications of the Bill and should be considered by the Select Committee. I do not accept his argument in totality, although it has a good deal of validity.
	The problem is that we all know how Standing Committees work in this place. The Select Committee will have a very leisurely paceperhaps too leisurely for the liking of its members, if they are to consider all the many petitions that they will receive. The Standing Committee will be ruthlessly timetabled and guillotined. It will not have the opportunity to consider the issues in depth, as they demand. I shall vote against the instruction on those grounds too, because it does not instruct the Select Committee that it may examine those issues. I am fearful that it will not, as a result of which the House will not.
	My understanding is that the rail industry supports Crossrail in principle, as long as it is considered part of the national rail network. The Secretary of State was reassuring in his remarks today, and I found myself wanting to agree with him. What he said was what I wanted to hear, but I fear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, that the Bill does not do what the Secretary of State assured us it would do. I therefore have serious objections to the Bill.
	I am reminded of the famous Monty Python sketch, The Spanish Inquisition. I began with just one objection. My objection is the capacity on the lines between Maidenhead and Readingah, and the continuation of the service between Maidenhead and Readingoh, andso I have diverse objections to the Bill. It began as one, but the more I considered it, driven by the issue of capacity between Maidenhead and Paddington, I realised that it was not just one or two objections, but such diverse elements as the impact on the existing rail network, funding, the narrowness of the design, the regulatory framework, and the failure to examine alternative solutions beyond the proposal in the Bill.
	I know that many other hon. Members who share my concerns had hoped to be present for the debate when it was scheduled to be held yesterday. I think particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who is extremely concerned, as am I, about the capacity issues. The fact that the attendance is relatively sparse tonight probably owes something to the change of business. Let us consider my hon. Friend's principal concern and that of Gloucestershire county councilthe impact on the existing railway.
	Crossrail will pose serious difficulties during construction and beyond. It is a massive project. It will be comparable to a combination of the second phase of the channel tunnel rail linkthe tunnelling under London and into St. Pancras, which is new buildand the west coast route modernisation, which is a major construction project. It will be lengthy and undoubtedly very disruptive to existing services. Along the two principal routes 2,200 freight, commuter, long-distance passenger and airport services per day will be affected. The Great Western route from Paddington to Maidenhead and the Great Eastern route from Shenfield to Liverpool Street will be seriously affected. The most noticeable impact will be on train services during engineering periods that require route closures. That will put huge pressure on other transport modes. If the work is carried out during the Olympics, God help us.
	Paddington will have particularly serious problems. The Bill allows for it to be shut for a month for construction purposes. We can bet our bottom dollar that it will end up being more than a month. Operations will be severely affected for several years during the construction of Crossrail, mainly because of the closure of Eastbourne terrace for that period and the changes required to the operational railway network. Network Rail's initial analysis suggests that some parts of the station will become unusable and that passenger flows will be severely affected. Taxis are a particular difficulty, because it would be a problem if Olympic athletes could not get taxis at Paddington.
	I shall not labour the point about freight terminals, which have already been discussed, but the severe disruption might mean that building materials and other goods are not delivered to London by rail and are displaced on to the roads, which would have severe environmental effects.
	I have discussed the construction phase, but what about the operational phase? Demand will be high and the operation will be intense. The network is already close to capacity, but the Bill will create no new capacity between Maidenhead and Paddington and between Shenfield and Liverpool Street. After construction, the capacity for freight and passenger services running west of Paddington to Cornwall, Devon, Bristol, north Somerset, Gloucestershire, south Wales, west Wales, Oxfordshire, the south Cotswolds and, of course, Worcestershire will be reduced from four lines to two. That is a lot of services to fit on to two lines.
	Clauses 21 to 26 provide for exclusive use by Crossrail of some of the existing rail lines out of Paddington and Liverpool Street. They effectively enable the Secretary of State to determine the minimum level of principal Crossrail services and to instruct the Office of Rail Regulation to amend or even terminate existing track access agreements to make way for minimum Crossrail services. They give priority to Crossrail over all existing passenger and freight services and undermine the concept of the independent regulation of the railway. If those provisions are enacted, they will severely reduce the frequency of train services into the two main termini, especially long-distance trains and commuter services from stations outside the Crossrail operation such as Twyford, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead mentioned.
	By undermining Network Rail's ability to manage Crossrail as an integral part of the overall network, which, despite the Secretary of State's calm honeyed words, would be the Bill's effect, the Bill will significantly reduce Network Rail's ability to deal with incidents on the network, because overall capacity will be reduced. In an exchange with some Government Members, the Secretary of State said, There will be no capacity problem. I assure you that I would not bring the Bill before the House if I thought for a minute that there would be a capacity problem.
	The Government's consultation on the environmental issues resulted in a weighty tome, to which Network Rail contributed submission 55:
	In the absence of a draft timetable for Crossrail services, it is difficult to assess how existing passenger and freight services could be readily accommodated. Furthermore, it is not possible to assess without knowledge of the Crossrail service plan if proposed infrastructure changes will adequately meet the existing and future needs of the industry . . . It has not been possible for Network Rail to conclude if the infrastructure proposed for Crossrail services will be sufficient to meet future needs without compromising the needs of other route users.
	That submission to the Department for Transport is dated 7 June 2005 and came from the group company secretary, Hazel Walker. In his speech, the Secretary of State said that all those matters have been settled, but the experts, Network Rail, say something different, which makes me nervous.
	We have addressed the issue of funding, so I will not labour the point, but it is another reason why I am worried. The Secretary of State said that the project will cost about 15 billion, and I think that his estimate is correct. The Treasury has apparently given the Department for Transport a 10-year budget, which does not include Crossrail. I hope that the money is available.
	The provisions on exclusive access to parts of the network for Crossrail services will adversely affect the existing First Great Western and One franchisesOne is an ugly name, but that is what the franchise is called. Some 60 freight trains a day use those lines, so the situation will have interesting financial consequences.
	On the narrowness of the design in relation to Reading, the scheme could have brought so much to the south-east, the south-west and the west midlands, but those possibilities are being destroyed by the ridiculous obsession with Maidenhead. We all thought that fast and semi-fast services would run from Reading, but it seems that Crossrail will simply take over existing stopping services from the west into Paddington. Crossrail will not extend to Reading, which is a major rail junction. Richard Branson's Cross Country trains go through Reading. Indeed, one can travel to almost every place in the country that is worth visitingfor example, Edinburgh, York, Darlington and Bournemouthfrom Reading, which is the logical place to end Crossrail.
	I was brought up near Maidenhead, a wonderful town where my great, great, great, great grandfather was once mayor, but it is an arbitrary place to end a railwayit is not a natural terminus. The Bill will rob a lot of value out of the First Great Western franchise and transfer services to Crossrail. Half the Crossrail services will not even go under London and will stop at Paddington, having crossed nothing except the Thames at Maidenhead. The project looks wonderful, but, as I have said, is the emperor really wearing any clothes?
	Why have we not examined the possibility of using this huge sum of moneybillions of poundsradically to improve the London underground? With a bit of tunnelling, a little imagination and a few improvements to access, the London underground could be transformed into an underground for the 21st century. We are ignoring that option in favour of Crossrail, because Crossrail is a shiny new toy.
	I shall not labour my concerns about the regulatory framework, but I share the worries expressed by other hon. Members. The Department for Transport has consistently acknowledged that this is a kitchen-sink Bill, but it claims that the situation is all right because the extensive powers, which it may not need, reassure the funders. However, I know that if Ministers are given powers, they will use them. I do not think that the Secretary of State currently intends to use those powers, but when push comes to shove, he will be tempted. Ministers should not be given dangerous toys unless they really need them.
	We have not examined the sensible alternatives to Crossrail, which has mesmerised people. I have not dismissed Superlink, which is a better scheme than Crossrail. It would use a similar tunnel under central London, but, unlike Crossrail, it would link directly to regional centres and airports across the south-east, including Heathrow and Stansted, which would relieve pressure elsewhere. Superlink would attract four times as many passengers as Crossrail, which would halve the cost to the taxpayer per passenger. Although Superlink is a bit more expensive than Crossrail, it is fundable in a way in which Crossrail is probably not.
	Superlink is compatible with the core section of Crossrail between Canary Wharf and Paddington, and it includes vital but small modifications at each end of that section to enable the major investment to deliver its full potential. Crossrail will not provide transport links to serve the areas of projected housing growth in the south-east and to relieve road traffic, particularly in the Thames Gateway. If Crossrail proceeds, it will pre-empt such infrastructure improvements.
	Crossrail is of little benefit to constituencies on the fringes of London or in the area around it, while Superlink would serve all of those areas. By taking travellers directly to their central London destinations, Superlink would more effectively relieve congestion on the London underground and free up key national rail routes.
	Interestingly, Superlink's analysis of congestion benefits was not challenged in the Cross London Rail Links analysis of Superlink. A railway that would solve the problems of Milton Keynes and Cambridge and address the east-west issues is a much more attractive option than Crossrail.
	I remain unconvinced that the instruction motion will allow the Select Committee to hear well founded criticism of the Crossrail scheme or properly to evaluate alternative options. This evening, the House must reflect on this basic question: why spend so much money, largely at taxpayers' expense, building a railway from Maidenhead to Shenfield, when, with just a little more thought and a little more expense, we could secure a transport network that addresses the real problems of London and the south-east and that costs the taxpayer less? Unless the Minister can explain why the Select Committee cannot examine the alternatives, why it cannot accept the official Opposition's instructionfor that matter, why can it not accept my instruction, which has not been selected?and why the instruction is so flawed, I will seek to divide the House on this well meaning but deeply flawed Bill.

Andrew Slaughter: I welcome the Bill and acknowledge the Government's commitment to the Crossrail project by bringing it forward as a hybrid Bill. I also welcome the Secretary of State's wish to put some certainty into the Bill by defining the limits of the Crossrail network. That is essential if the scheme is to be practical and affordable. The project is important to the nation and will have national rail links, but it is, in essence, a London railway and it needs to be looked at in those terms.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) referred to Superlink. If I have got the jargon right, that proposal is essentially a commuter scheme, whereas Crossrail is a metro scheme. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made some complimentary references to Superlink. If that is Liberal Democrat policy, it would be of interest to my constituents.

Tom Brake: Let me make it clear that what I said about Superlink was that it raised some issues to which it was worth the Government responding; that is not quite what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Andrew Slaughter: That is the most enthusiastic view of Superlink that I have heard. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, it did not publish the route, but it showed us a map. I believe that although Ipswich and possibly Worcester were on that map, Acton main line was not.

Peter Luff: I would love Worcester to be served by a fast service direct through to Canary Wharf, but it was nowhere near the map. The hon. Gentleman is making mischief. He says that Crossrail is a metro service. People going from Maidenhead into west London do not want a metro service: they have a perfectly good rail service. Crossrail diminishes the quality of the service for many people who currently use it; and a metro is not very attractive.

Andrew Slaughter: I may be old-fashioned, but I thought that the links to the national rail network were the London terminals of Paddington and Liverpool Street, which seem to do a perfectly good job. The principal job of Crossrail is to provide much needed relief to central London and to the western and eastern arms; that is why it has received a warm welcome from business, local government, trade unions and transport groups. Even those who intend to petition against parts of the Bill generally preface their objections with an endorsement of the scheme. My constituents largely fall into that category by giving it a clear but not unqualified welcome. I shall come on to the objections in a moment.
	The benefits to the national and London economy, to employment and, in particular, to the transport network were set out in the Secretary of State's speech, and I do not intend to repeat them. The good sense of having an east-west through route connecting to national rail services and the tube is so apparent that it has been advocated for some 50 years. The commercial and operational benefits are complemented by the relief that it will bring to tube lines already operating at capacity.
	The specific local benefits to my constituency are significant. Ealing Broadway will be the principal interchange station on the west arm of the route. The station itself will benefit from much needed reconstruction. Commuters will experience improved services and journey times to many destinations, as well as the new routes that will be opened up to the centre of London. Acton main line station will be rebuilt and the number of trains increased from two to four per hour, reversing the cut in services made last year. The facilities at all stations along the line will be improved and the stations extended to accommodate longer trains. That is all good news for rail users in the western part of my constituency.
	However, there are three concerns about the project as currently set out. First, there is a belief that the good news in the Bill could be better. Twenty-four trains will run through the central tunnel at peak times. In the east, those will continue on one or other of the Shenfield or Abbey Wood branch lines; in the west, 14 trains will be turned round at Paddington. The central conceit of Crossrail is to make a once-in-a-generation improvement in the cross-London rail network by linking up the existing extensive but disparate web of overground and underground lines. However, no attempt has been made to interchange with the West London line at Shepherds Bush or the North London line at Acton.It is difficult to tell whether the service to Heathrow from local stations will improve. BAA, which has just introduced the Heathrow Connect service, says that it will not. It is an issue not only of timetabling but of fares. If the premium fares that are currently charged for travelling even a few miles by rail to Heathrow are to continue, many non-business users are likely to boycott the service.
	The second caveat, and the basis of a groundswell of local opposition to Crossrail, is the effect that it will have on the local environment, particularly the loss of a substantial area of open space comprising allotments, school playing fields and natural habitat for a number of protected species. The London borough of Ealing and numerous local organisations from the Acton area will, with my support, petition the Select Committee on those issues. The significance of losing irreplaceable open space in inner city areas cannot be overestimated. In this case, the sites are well used and have been for several generations. They are, admittedly, part of the original Great Western estate and stand on railway land, but so does much of the residential property and other amenities in that part of Acton. The specific areas of land marked out for compulsory purchase include a sizeable part of the playing field and nature reserve of West Acton primary school and the whole Noel road allotments site.
	The teachers and pupils of the school and the residents who till the allotments are not naive, and I doubt that they believe that even armed with rakes and hockey sticks they could stop a 10 billion railroad crossing their land. However, it transpires that the land grab in Acton is wholly unnecessary, as alternative brownfield sites along that part of the route could be substituted. The same applies at Ealing Broadway, where it is proposed to take over Haven greena protected area of green space in Ealing town centreinstead of using a nearby car park for storage and construction works. I presume that that can only be for reasons of cost and convenience to the contractor. Some six years ago, similar proposals to take over those greenfield sites were turned down at the planning stage because alternative brownfield sites were available, and it remains the view of the local authority that those sites are there. Of course, the powers given by the Bill will subsume such local planning powers. Moreover, as the history of the site suggests, the proposed extensive works at Acton yard would envelop the community open space, yet they are not germane to the Crossrail scheme itself but part of separate development proposals for the freight yard. Local residents fear that were the Bill to be passed but Crossrail to be abandoned, the compulsory purchase powers given by the Bill might be used to advance other interests. That lose-lose option would mean no playing fields, but no new rail service either.
	That example illustrates my third and final reservation about the Bill. Are the powers to take over existing interests, in particular the compulsory purchase of landholdings of existing users, necessary to fulfil the requirements of the Crossrail scheme? Many substantial interests with a locus in my constituency will petition on these points, including BAA, EWS Railway and Cory Environmental. I do not intend to recite the objections in detail here, as other hon. Members have mentioned them, but the general point is well made. It cannot be right for any greater powers to be taken by the Secretary of State with a view to passing them to the nominated undertaker than are necessary for the construction and operation of the Crossrail route, or for there to be no requirement to consider and negotiate the rights of existing users. If that dictum applies to other major players on the Great Western lines, it should also apply to neighbouring communities.
	It is always easier in such debates to dwell on the points of difference than on the layers of agreement. I conclude by repeating that the Bill will find general and enthusiastic support in my constituency, not least because it is an essential addition to the London rail network.

Eric Pickles: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. If the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) will forgive me, I should like to revert to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) made about the instructions.
	The Secretary of State was persuasive. He managed to make me feel at ease and that I should not be so worried about whether the instruction constituted a firm set of locks on the Committee. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire took legal advice and told hon. Members that our original fears, and the reason why I tabled an instruction, were well founded because the Government's instruction would preclude the Committee from considering the possibility of, for example, moving on to Reading or moving the termini from Shenfield to Stratford.
	I agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would stand at the Dispatch Box and mislead the House. I have no doubt that he spoke in good faithperhaps the advice that he received was simply wrong. If so, will the Under-Secretary assure us in his winding-up speech that he will ensure that the Committee is instructed to give life to the Secretary of State's undertakings? If he does that, we can all leave the debate feeling that something significant has been achieved. I ask him for a specific response to that point.
	The Secretary of State said something startling in his introduction. The issue that dare not speak its name, which has rumbled gently through the debate, is the source of the money. I was therefore startled when the Secretary of State said that he was waiting for the Lyons committee to report. That is a bizarre reason not to be forthright in the Chamber. If the Secretary of State genuinely believes that the reform of non-domestic rates and the rebanding of council tax, even with an additional band, will find the money for Crossrail, he is deluded.

John Hayes: The Secretary of State is not the only one who is deluded. In an answer to a written question from me a week or so ago, the Under-Secretary declared that the cost of Crossrail would be 10.063 billion, rising to 10.292 billion. Today, the Secretary of State said that the cost was likely to be 15 billion or 16 billion. There is genuine doubt about the money and I was therefore somewhat surprised. Mick Lyons was surprised that he had to deal with it and I am sure that my hon. Friend is just as surprised to hear that news.

Eric Pickles: With such increases, the Government would undoubtedly cap Crossrail if it were a local authority. However, the hard truth is that if we are genuinely waiting for Lyons and the money is to come from an amalgam of council tax and non-domestic rates, the price box will increase and we are likely to experience significant rises in rail, underground and bus fares to pay for Crossrail.

Peter Luff: One of the House's prime functions, along with scrutinising legislation, is to vote money to the Government. Does my hon. Friend knowI do notof any mechanism whereby the House can consider the financial questions around Crossrail?

Eric Pickles: As far as I understand the instructions and the role of the Select Committee, the finance is not to be considered. We are being asked to vote for probably the largest civil engineering project in Europe this century, without any genuine certainty about how it will be financed. I do not doubt Crossrail's economic importance or the significance of the engineering feat. It will reduce congestion in London and unblock the clogged lines in our capital. However, I am unhappy about the far-reaching powers that the Bill transfers to Crossrail. It threatens the stability of our railway network in terms of the timetable and fair competition. It also threatens the independence of the Office of Rail Regulation and puts the projected growth of freight at risk.
	My hon. Friends spent some time considering the Office of Rail Regulation and I will not repeat those points, save to say that the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead about her constituents' desire to look to the Office of Rail Regulation rather than the Mayor of London is true for the people of Brentwood and of Shenfield. We must acknowledge that Crossrail's effects will be felt not only in the capital, but across country to and beyond Cardiff.
	Freight has been one of the great successes of the modern railway network. We have reached double figures in the percentage of freight that is carried by rail. We are at a crucial point when significant sums of capital investment have been made in freight, and we are moving from transporting goods for which time was not critical, such as aggregates, coal and oil, to goods for which time is critical. If, at this crucial point, we restrict the ability of freight to be moved on our railways, we risk the disappearance of all that investment and the genuine possibilityat a time when our roads, especially the A12, are massively overcrowdedof freight being transferred from rail to road. That would be ironic.
	I am worried about other consequences. Four tracks are available for 20 miles from London. Crossrail will take two of them, forcing other services on to the fast lines. That remains a worry to me and my constituents. Crossrail's route and plans would fit more easily into a railway pattern of the 1980s rather than 2005 or 2015. It is depressing that there appears to be no genuine grasp of the growth of docklands, the extension of the Jubilee line or the strategic importance of the Thames Gateway, about which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) spoke so convincingly. That is why the project starts at Maidenhead and ends at Shenfield. None of the developments that I mentioned existed when the original plans were made.
	The Shenfield line runs at full capacity. Thousands of people travel on it in overcrowded trains, and the slightest delay causes a major snarl-up. Crossrail does not add to the capacity. To be fair, Crossrail claims a slight increase in capacityfrom eight to 10 carriages, operating at a greater frequency at what it describes as peak and other times. That can be achieved only at the expense of freight and other users.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is making an important point. The estimates that I have from the rail industry show that Crossrail's plans could mean halving services from Oxford to London, from two trains to one train an hour, and halving services from Norwich to London. I hope that the Home Secretary will therefore vote against Second Reading.

Eric Pickles: It would be good for law and order if we kept the Home Secretary in Norwich. Every cloud has a silver lining.
	If Crossrail were to operate as planned, with 24 trains an hour through the central tunnels at peak times, it is far from clear that the network could accommodate such a service on top of existing and anticipated rail passenger and freight traffic. Freight operators estimate the use of only two tracks for 40 freight trains a day in each direction to and from Shenfield, plus nine intercity and outer-suburban off-peak trains. We also have to remember, when we are talking about the line from Shenfield to Liverpool Street, that 10 to 20 trains a day cross the important crossing from Forest Gate to the North London line. That, too, has a knock-on effect. My constituents will end up with disruption, inconvenience and, in the end, a worse service.
	Crossrail will make the line from Shenfield unstable in terms of timetabling and vulnerable in terms of disruption. That might be justified if Shenfield's sacrifice were in the national interest. For some time, I have been asking railway organisations why Crossrail should start at Shenfield. No one has ever come up with a convincing logistical or engineering reason. A couple of months ago, a senior representative from Crossrail gave a presentation to a packed meeting in my constituency. He conducted himself with his customary charm and was listened to attentively and politely by my constituents. I asked him to tell us why the line should start at Shenfield. He is an obliging man, and he did so. I was startled by his first point, which was that Shenfield was traditionally the end of the line; it was therefore where the train drivers had lived and joined their trains.
	I am the very proud grandson of a railway worker. Shenfield and Hutton Mount were among the wealthiest places in the United Kingdom in a recent survey of household incomes, with property prices to match. A house in Shenfield or Hutton Mount would, frankly, be out of reach of most Members of this House and, unless train drivers' salaries have greatly increased in real terms since my grandfather's day, of most train drivers. In April and May, I walked the streets in that area and I cannot recall meeting any member of the railway industry other than members of the board of Network Rail.
	I point this out not to poke fun at Crossrail, but to illustrate the flimsiness of the case for Shenfield. Taking over the existing Metro services and control of all the lines will add nothing to the project except extra cost. Shenfield is the end of the line because it has always been the end of the line. With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, I should like to take up the Hans Christian Andersen theme again. This is another example of the emperor's new clothes. The line will end at Shenfield because it has always ended at Shenfield, for no particular reason. Surely it would make better sense to end Crossrail at Stratford. It is a much more natural terminus, which is important, as other hon. Members have pointed out. It is strategically placed for the natural expansion of London and it would be cheaper to construct. Also, the cost benefits of the project become more evident from Stratford onwards.
	I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is in his place; I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this. The inclusion of Shenfield has led to some very questionable logistic decisions by Crossrail, one of which involves Romford. I cannot understand why we should build a depot in the middle of Romford, costing 400 million, when there is a perfectly good one going spare near Paddington that is soon to be vacated by Eurostar. The purpose of my tabled instruction is to allow the Select Committee to study the options in this regard, and I hope that the Minister will allow our constituents and other concerned parties such as Brentwood council to talk to the Select Committee about the possibility of having a proper terminus at Stratford.

Peter Luff: This shows the value of public debatesan interesting thought has just occurred to me. I have been fixated with the idea of extending the line westwards. My hon. Friend is talking about shortening the eastern section by bringing the terminus further into London, and that is a powerful argument. Ealing Broadway now commends itself to me as the terminus in the west. It is on a cheaper line and is a natural rail junction, albeit not as powerful or impressive as Reading. The Select Committee should consider a route from Ealing Broadway to Stratford.

Eric Pickles: There is some merit in that suggestion, but the point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham about the southern route, which would move it more naturally into the Thames Gateway, also had merit. Rather than wasting money extending the line from Stratford up to Shenfield, why not release that money and place Crossrail where there will be significant growth?
	Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I are in agreement, I shall disagree violently with him on Superlink. I had hoped that my instruction to the Committee would not allow the flight of fancy represented by Superlink to distract the Committee. My constituents are not impressed by Superlink's desire to smash two new railway lines through the gently undulating Essex countryside. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the same consideration to that beautiful countryside as he gives to Brunel's marvellous bridges. Those two new lines would disturb the villages of Lambourne and Abridge to the west, and Navestock, Blackmore, Hook End, Swallows Cross and Mountnessing in the east.
	Perhaps I should declare an interest. Although Superlink tells me that my property will not be affected, I have to say that a close examination of that enormous red line on its plans seems to reveal that Superlink will go right through Mrs. Pickles' and my kitchen door, so hon. Members will understand why I am not exactly happy with the idea. What Superlink airily dismisses as open field is my constituents' precious green belt. My constituents are even less impressed by Superlink's patrician refusal to publish an exact route. Any organisation that shows such disdain for the public forfeits the right to be taken seriously.
	The Secretary of State made great play of the necessity for private rights to be considered by the Select Committee. There are a number of problems with the environmental impact assessment, which has, perhaps inadvertently, misled some of my constituents. I want to make one narrow point on this issue, and I would like one of my constituents to speak for the rest. My constituent, Mr. Cloke, lives at 15 Herington Grove, and although his house is shown as being likely to be affected by significant adverse noise impact, it does not qualify for noise insulation. Nos. 11 and 17 Herington Grove do qualify, however. No. 17 is interesting because it is not a building but part of the garden of No. 15, which does not qualify.
	When my constituent contacted Crossrail's helpdesk, he was told
	that the tables set out in the Environmental Statement were samples and not representative of whether houses will or will not be affected, which will only be known and assessed once construction work commences. This apparently was to comply with Parliamentary requirements for the document to be reduced in size.
	To make the assessment only when construction commences would be contrary to the noise and vibration mitigation scheme. It also seems completely pointless. Once the construction has started, the noise, disruption and vibration will also have started. Mr. Cloke rightly asks:
	How can this be done in a realistic timeframe to alleviate and mitigate the noise from the construction?
	I would ask the Select Committee, when it is considering the private rights, to look at this aspect of the scheme as a matter of urgency. A number of my constituents have thumbed their way through the environmental report and decided either that they have nothing to worry about or that they have something to worry about. Either way, however, this is just an indicative scheme, and that is not a sensible path for either the House or Crossrail to pursue.

Andrew Rosindell: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on this vital issue, which affects my constituency particularly. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), whose views on Crossrail and its effects on our side of London and into Essex I endorse completely.
	You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the previous Parliament I presented a petition of some 2,302 signatures, collected by me and members of the Crossrail action group based in my constituency. We have deep concerns regarding all the proposals affecting Romford by Cross London Rail Links Ltd. The aim of that extensive petition was not to prevent the betterment of public transport services in London and the south-east, nor to halt Crossrail's plans completely, but to try to encourage Cross London Rail Links Ltd. and the Department for Transport to reconsider some of their proposals for Romford, which in my view will have a devastating impact on the local community and disrupt the lives of many people there. I am sorry to say that, even though that petition was presented to Crossrail representatives and to the door of No.10 Downing street, neither Ministers nor Crossrail have taken heed of my constituents' concerns. I sincerely hope that that will change as the Bill proceeds to Committee.
	As you might expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, my speech today will be devoted almost entirely to specific issues facing my constituency as a result of the Crossrail Bill. Speaking as both the local Member of Parliament and a local resident, I back my constituents wholeheartedly in their campaign against what can only be described as outrageous proposals for our local area, particularly affecting the communities of Crowlandsthe district of Romford between the London road and Crow laneRush Green and Gidea Park. Crossrail proposes to construct a 24-hour maintenance depot and sidings in those highly populated residential areas of Romford.

Andrew Slaughter: Whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a depot in his constituency is entirely a matter for him, but I wonder why he wishes that it was going to be in my constituency, as I gather that he does from questions that he has asked. Crossrail had, I think, 42 options for the depot and chose Romford. He seems keen for it to be sited in Shepherd's Bush.

Andrew Rosindell: I am keen that it goes in the location that will cause the least disruption to people's lives, which certainly is not Romford. I accept that other locations might also be contentious and that needs to be examined closely in the Select Committee. Wherever Crossrail finally decides to place its depot, if the Bill goes through, I hope that it will not devastate people's lives as is currently proposed in my constituency of Romford.
	The depot proposed in Romford is set to be approximately 2.5 km in length, running through both the Romford Town and Brooklands wards. Railway sidings and an access route for vehicles are to be constructed in Squirrel's Heath ward, also in my constituency. The proposal for a depot in central Romford will undoubtedly have the greatest impact on the lives of local people, taking away playing fields and open spaces and generating a vast amount of noise and pollution, and it is likely to turn a fairly quiet residential area of Romford into something like an industrial site. No way, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let me take you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a journey from west to east of the proposed Romford construction works, starting from the access tracks to be placed on the Westlands playing fields, an area of green belt land often used by local community groups, as well as the adjoining St. Edwards's Church of England comprehensive school and sixth-form college. Understandably, the school strongly opposes Crossrail's proposals, which would lead to the immediate loss of sporting facilities on Westlands playing fields and 50 per cent. of its own sports area, into which much investment is currently going, not to mention the overall long-term impact on the school if it is to be situated adjacent to a large Crossrail work site, with all the associated noise, dust, disturbance and congestion.
	A proportion of the land equal to approximately two thirds of the Westlands playing fields is to be used temporarily as a Crossrail work site, depriving local children and residents of its use for about four years and eight months, including one year and nine months of enabling works. The Westlands playing fields are a key recreational facility in the affected area and are also used by the constituents of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas). The Romford constituency also has lots of other green space and park land, most notably Oldchurch park, which is now being used to build a new hospital. Out of a total of 13 sports pitches on the fields, eight will be lost temporarily, and three permanently. Residents understandably feel that, once the fields have been reinstated, if it proves to be the case that local sports teams have relocated, the local authority will seize the opportunity to show those fields as surplus to requirement and sell the remaining land for development in accordance with guidelines set out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	The Government claim to put children first and have expressed concern over the number of obese children in Britain today. Perhaps the Minister can tell me how children in Romford are supposed to exercise without such recreational facilities as playing fields. That issue has also been highlighted by Sport England. To compound the loss, the disruption, including the arrival and departure of as many as 10 construction lorries a day, is due to last a child's whole secondary school life and will span 16 to 20 sets of public examinations overall, ranging from key stage 3 standard assessment tests to A-levels. We are all aware of the stress that children face at the time of examinations, and to add such distraction is nothing less than irresponsible from a Government who are supposedly concerned with the future of our younger generation. Not only will the use of the green belt land be detrimental to schoolchildren, patrons and residents, but the ecology of the area will be seriously affected.
	The adjacent land known locally as Westlands Rough is the last remaining field of the Thames Chase to be left untouched within the London borough of Havering. To lose that green belt site would deprive the local community of the enjoyment and education of observing many species of wildlife and fauna, as well as taking away an area that many people use and enjoy for taking their dogs for walks. My Staffordshire bull terrier, Buster, who is well known to many Members, will be devastated if this treasured area of green space is wrecked by Crossrail's plans. Some species found on the site are of high conservation priority and are all unique to this part of the London borough of Havering. Such a site cannot be replaced.
	The dive-under from Westlands playing fields will bring trains from north to south of the Great Eastern main railway line, causing prolonged noise to residents in that area from slow-moving trains 24 hours a day, and particularly throughout the night and early morning when they will either go in for maintenance or leave ready for the morning rush. That will affect local residents on both sides of the main line. An area to the south of Crow lane is to be used as a work site and adjoins many residential properties. That is approximately 4 acres of green belt land that forms part of the Dagenham corridorthe barrier between the London boroughs of Havering and of Barking and Dagenham. In addition, a new bridge to carry Crossrail would have to be built over a local road on the south side of the line after the underpass. Again, that would cause major disruption, with road levels perhaps needing to be altered. The lengthening of the walkway due to the additional bridge will have negative effects for pedestrians, a high proportion of whom are schoolchildren of both primary and secondary school age.
	Yet another public worry is the loss of public recreation ground as a result of disruption in an area known as Jutsums park. A major gas main is being rerouted. Moreover, there will be a loss of established trees and plants whose planting was paid for and carried out by the local community. Crossrail itself admits that users of Jutsums park will be
	subject to significant noise impact
	during construction, which will make it very unpleasant to use. The disruption of the parkland is in addition to the permanent loss of Oldchurch park playing fields, less than a mile away.
	Continual erosion of those facilities will leave the youth of the area little recreational space that is free of charge. That means that we are in danger of seeing more gangs of youths congregating on street corners with nothing to do, especially in the town centre. As might be expected, my constituents and I are deeply concerned. We fear that the knock-on effect of Crossrail's proposals could be an increase in youth crime in Romford.
	Crossrail has also proposed the building of a service road between Jutsums lane and the depot building towards the eastern end of the construction works. The road is to be built on the embankment and will run approximately 4 m from the ground. Vehicles will thus be level with the upstairs windows of people's homes. Inevitably, that will cause even more disturbance and invasion of privacy. The depot will take five or six years to build, which means at least six years of constant disruption, congestion, dirt, noise pollution and light pollution.
	Those negative factors will affect residents, some of whose homes are about 100 m from the proposed depot site. The Higginses, with their small children, are an example. Not only will access to the road be less than 10 m from the side wall of their house but the proposed maintenance depot will be 100 m from the bottom of their garden. When they bought their home 20 years ago, Mr. and Mrs. Higgins were well aware of the existing railway line, but they did not expect to live next door to a 24-hour maintenance depot.
	The plans affect my constituents throughout Romford. Local roads will become more congested, with a plethora of construction traffic. Vehicles travelling to service the depot, both during and after construction, will journey down residential roads, not only damaging roads but putting pedestrians at risk. The depot will also dramatically change the skyline of the area, dominating the view from many residential properties. It is to be built on land that has already been raised by between 3 and 4 m, to make it level with the existing railway line.
	According to the requirements of the Greater London assembly biodiversity document, recognised by the Government as being in league with Agenda 21, brownfield land unused for human purposes that has reverted to its natural state can be classified as greenfield. The Crossrail action group and I believe that that applies to the Romford gasworks land that is to be used for the depot development. The depot itself will be 12 m high, which means an overall height of 15 to 16 maround double the height of the average house in the area.
	In answer to a written question from me, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), confirmed that the depot would be operational 24 hours a day. With lighting conducive to worker safety and high-pressure commercial washing taking place throughout the night, residents are sadly unlikely to have a night's peace if the depot development proceeds. Moreover, a parcel of land next to the depot area and to the rear of the residential properties is to be used as a route control centre and a large car park. Although the facility itself may not be particularly noisy, residents fear that further disruption will accompany shift changes during the night. The facility does not form part of the depot and can be located anywhere along the route. The construction of the depot will necessitate the removal of a gas holder, which will leave residents exposed to associated contamination. I do not consider it justifiable for the lives of residents, some of whom have lived in their homes for more than 60 years, to be disrupted to such a dreadful extent.

Charles Walker: Has not Crossrail shown complete disregard for the needs of my hon. Friend's constituents?

Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend's words echo the views of all my constituents. We originally thought that the development might benefit us, but over time we have realised that there will be very little benefit and it will wreck many people's lives. Many elderly people who live locally are in fear of what they may have to face in their twilight years.
	Although it was asked for details of the elimination of the other depot sites considered as long ago as July 2004, Cross London Rail Links did not see fit to release the information to Havering council, Havering's Greater London assembly representative Roger Evans and the Crossrail action group until May this year, although the document is clearly dated December 2003. Having looked at the reasons for deselection of some of the alternative sites, I deduce that different criteria have been used from one site to the next. The Romford option is the most expensive and the most logistically difficult to build, yet it appears that the use of so-called brownfield land for the depot, although it is in a residential area, is being made to fit Crossrail's criteria. How can that possibly be? I hope that the Minister will tell us later.
	Towns usually build up around industry of this kind, rather than the other way about. I ask for Cross London Rail Links to be directed back to the drawing board, and told to consider land that has already been used for this purpose at Ilford or North Pole. I also ask for all sites considered to be rated with the use of the same criteria, rather than differing criteria depending on location.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend mentioned the North Pole depot, to which I also referred. Eurostar will lose it in 2007. Does it surprise my hon. Friend that Crossrail has not even considered it as an alternative?

Andrew Rosindell: I agree. I find that not just surprising but astonishing. If there is one message to be conveyed from our side of the debate, it is that the Minister should reconsider that aspect. The North Pole site would clearly be appropriate and would avoid much disruption in my constituency and elsewhere.
	The most infuriating example of what I am describing is the fact that a site with only a handful of houses nearby uses proximity to dwellings as an adverse effect, while there has been no mention of that in the selection of Romford, although hundreds of homes will be affected. The depot at North Pole, just west of Paddington and on the proposed Crossrail route to Heathrow, is currently used by Eurostar, as my hon. Friend said. That new, modern depot, built to maintain the most modern trains, will be vacated in 2007 when Eurostar switches its maintenance to a new depot being built at Temple Mills with 400 million of taxpayers' money. If Crossrail used North Pole, it would probably save the taxpayer the 430 million construction costs of the Romford depot, and save my constituents in Romford from massive and unnecessary disruption. Crossrail has not been able to give a convincing reason for its inability to use the North Pole site.

Andrew Slaughter: I did not think that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) mentioned North Pole. I believe that he mentioned a depot near Paddington. North Pole is relatively near Paddington, but is actually at Shepherd's Bush. If only from my earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) must know that Crossrail considered it as an option and rejected it, partly because it is in west London rather than east London and therefore logistically inappropriate, and partly because there may be other plans for the North Pole depot. He cannot hang his argument on that.

Andrew Rosindell: There may be other plans and Crossrail may have considered them, but it has not pursued that option. What I am asking today is for the Minister to revive that option and look further into the details. A decision has been taken, but not a fair decision, so other alternatives need to be considered. Will the Minister assure my constituents that he will investigate why this option has been decided and ensure that the North Pole alternative is given serious and urgent consideration?
	Other effects of the work in Romford include the extension of an underpass widely used by residents ranging from children to the elderly. It will be extended from 43 to 75 m. Associated works at Romford station will cause considerable disruption with yet more work sites and more construction vehicles. The affected residents are effectively stuck in the area, because once Crossrail reaches planning stages and starts showing up a negative on searches, residents will be unable to sell their homes, causing blight to many home owners in my constituency. I feel that that is totally unfair to my constituents.
	I turn now to the effects of Crossrail in the Gidea park area of my constituency, where railway sidings and an access route are being proposed. The residents of Cambridge avenue, Amery gardens and the surrounding area will have imposed on them a large area for the storage of Crossrail trainsyet more disturbance, noise and pollution. Gidea park is another quiet residential area and although the Liverpool Street line runs through the community, using the land at the rear of residential properties for that particular purpose is an entirely new development, to which most local people are completely opposed. There is also the access route for vehicles proposed via the Southend arterial road, where lorries will thunder past residential properties and around the sides of people's homes, causing no end of disturbance. As the local MP, I speak on behalf of all local residents from the area who feel that this plan is totally and utterly unacceptable.
	It has also become increasingly apparent that affected residents in the area will have little to gain from the development or from the Crossrail service itself. As such, I believe that connecting the Great Eastern Shenfield line into the Crossrail scheme could prove a serious mistakea view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. From what I can see, the 1.5 billion that it will cost far outweighs the potential benefits to passengers from Romford. There will be only a slight increase in capacity and, by the time the whole scheme is commissioned, it will have been absorbed by the growth of towns along the eastern route. There is no real evidence that journey times for passengers on this branch will decrease substantially. Most commuters from Romford walk from Liverpool Street station to jobs in the City and there is also a good interchange at Stratford on to the Central line. Since the Crossrail scheme was revived by the central London rail study, the Jubilee line has been constructed, allowing passengers to travel directly to Canary Wharf and the west end, reducing the congestion on the Central line.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for giving the House so much information about the impact of this development on his constituency. Does he agree that any development of this kind will have the effect not only of increasing traffic and travel, but of enabling people to travel far further to work than they otherwise couldin other words, to live perhaps in Essex and work in Middlesex, which under other circumstances would be wholly irrational and likely to force people to relocate? We are not improving the environment, but merely enabling more and more people to travel further and further, damaging the environment as they do so.

Andrew Rosindell: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. We all want progress and greater access to travel, but there are many different ways of doing it. I am increasingly of the view that the important thing to focus on is smaller developmentslocalised, but clearly focused on what will be achieved. Huge developments may not necessarily improve the situation but most certainly have a big impact on the environment. The debate will become more detailed and complex as time goes on.
	Crossrail has told Romford residents at meetings held by the Crossrail action group that they will be able to board direct trains to Heathrow airport. However, in answer to another of my written questions, the Minister confirmed that all trains to Heathrow will, in fact, start from Abbey Wood with no direct service from Shenfield. We have also learned that Crossrail trains are unlikely to run to Heathrow's new terminal 5 because of capacity conflicts. It appears that passengers from the Shenfield branch will need to change trains to get to Heathrow and then change again if they want to use flights from terminal 5. The case for incorporating the Shenfield line in the Crossrail scheme seems to depend on the assumption that it will, in turn, release capacity for more services from Stansted airport into Liverpool Street station. Yet rail industry experts have raised serious questions about whether Crossrail's operating strategies will actually work. If they are right, Crossrail's plans imply the utter waste of 1.5 billion, with the so-called investment going into making public transport worse.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is completing a powerful oration on behalf of his constituents. The situation is even worse than he suggests. BAA is aware of the problems for travellers to Heathrow that he described, but there is the additional point that we will be mixing densely packed commuters with travellers carrying a lot of luggage. As a result, the   premium service to Heathrowthe Heathrow Expressis at risk.

Andrew Rosindell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The deeper and more detailed our analysis of these problems, the clearer it becomes that there are great flaws in what is proposed.
	If Crossrail is intended to serve the London borough of Havering, I suggest that it has been wrongly routed. To serve its remit of opening up communities, it should serve the area further south where the bulk of regeneration of the Thames Gateway will take place.
	Finally, Crossrail is described as an east-west rail link, but why not think of it as a west-east rail link? It could make more sense to build it that way round now that we have secured our bid to host the 2012 Olympic games. As Lord Coe has said in many of his presentations, the Olympic site is already served by nine railways, and the Olympic Javelin will provide a fast shuttle to Kings Cross. Rather than disrupt rail services in the critical period before the Olympics, why do we not concentrate on getting the Heathrow and Abbey Wood branches up and running? That will reduce the initial costs of the scheme, while the Shenfield branch can be added later, if required.
	On behalf of my constituents in Romford, I ask the Government and all right hon. and hon. Members to put themselves in the position of the residents who will suffer so much hardship from the construction work if the scheme goes ahead on their doorstep. That is not just nimbyism, but a collection of serious concerns about the quality of life of thousands of people.
	The point of scrutinising legislation in this place is surely to modify Bills. What the constituents of Romford and the Crossrail action group are proposing is minor in the grand scheme of Crossrail, but in the lives of real people, due to be seriously undermined, it is vital. I urge the Government to request the Select Committee to review the proposals for the eastern section of the line, especially the depot in Romford and the sidings at Gidea Park, and more generally, whether it really makes sense to incorporate the Shenfield line in the Crossrail scheme. Why not simply use some of the money to upgrade the existing line to Liverpool Street?
	I look forward to imparting more detailed evidence to members of the Committee, but if any Members want to learn more about the proposals that affect my constituency, they are welcome to access the Crossrail action group website at www.romfordcag.co.uk. I conclude by urging the Government to listen to the residents of Romford and to the Crossrail action group, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that their environment and community can be treasured for generations to come.

Mark Field: I am sure that the whole debate has been a delight for every last train spotter. It seems that almost every railway siding from Essex to Worcestershire has been mentioned; in particular, we have had a tour d'horizon of Romford, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who went into great detail in a passionate defence of the rights and interests of his constituents.
	When, or perhaps if, Crossrail is built, our capital cityone of the great global citieswill have the beginnings of a railway system fit for the 21st century. Why then have the Government seen fit to impose a procedure more suited to the 19th century in proposing this hybrid Bill? What of democratic accountability, and consultation with the countless residents whose daily lives will be blighted and affected? We have heard about that from several contributors to the debate. Why is the ultimate decision about whether the project is funded, and thus can proceed, left to two men, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport, who do not represent anyone on transport issues in this House? It is a devolved matter for their constituents in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and in Edinburgh, South-West.
	There is no doubt that London desperately needs proper investment in its infrastructure, because if London fails economically, the whole of the United Kingdom fails with it. Jobs, at least those outside the public sector, that fly from our capital city usually leave our shores entirely. Any Government action that diminishes the relative commercial importance of London is unlikely to benefit Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham; instead, it will be European or increasingly south-east Asian cities that will reap the benefits. It is in that context that we must ensure that investment in the transport infrastructure of our capital city is fit for purpose in an innovative, rapidly evolving world of commerce.
	Crossrail is a plan that will integrate the mainline railways to the east and west of London, through the construction of two tunnels, directly beneath the centre of London, from Paddington to Liverpool Street. As the Secretary of State said in his opening comments, the project was agreed by the Government as long ago as 1990 but the necessary private Bill failed to get through the House of Commons four years later. Finally, on grounds of cost as much as anything else, the Conservative Government pulled the plug on that scheme in 1996. Many Members who have spoken in the debate may not be entirely aware that the proposal goes back as far as 1948, so surely few would dispute the fact that Crossrail is an idea whose time has genuinely come.
	There are, however, some substantial issues that need to be properly addressed even on Second Reading. Later, I shall touch on some constituency issues; rightly, as constituency Members, we have particular concerns and they have been mentioned by all the Members who have made contributions so far. None the less there are some more fundamental issues, many of which concern the proposed funding for the entire project and the manner in which the promoters of the Bill, Cross London Rail Links Ltd.a joint venture company formed by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for Londonhave gone about their public consultation obligations. I accept that many such issues will be discussed at far greater length in the protracted formal Committee stage, assuming that the Bill gets that far.
	I am the Member of Parliament whose constituency is most obviously directly affected by the proposal, which is not to demean in any way the contributions made elsewhere. However, as the central part of Crossrail goes right through my constituency from Liverpool Street in the City of London to Paddington station, I wanted to list some of the concerns on the record in advance of petitions by residents associations, local businesses and individual members of the public. The funding of infrastructure projects here in our capital city has historically been highly contentious. Sadly, if anyone believed that adding a new layer of devolved government, as this Labour Government did in creating the Mayor and the Greater London assembly only five years ago, would make things easier, they were sadly mistaken.

Charles Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that traditionally too much of London's money has been sent to the regions to fund infrastructure projects in the north of England and Scotland, and not enough retained in London to guarantee the future of this great city and its ability to bankroll this nation of ours?

Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I know that he is a serving councillor in the London borough of Wandsworth, so I expect he sees both sides of that argument, from the suburbs and from central London. I think he is absolutely right.
	It is clear that the financing of this project remains entirely up in the air. I think we are the first to accept that businesses are willing, and have shown themselves willing, to make a contribution, but equally they want to see the colour of the Government's money. They want an idea of the likely funding structure. My greatest worry is that although we could spend months, perhaps years, talking about Crossrail, unless there is a fairly clear idea of the source of the financing, all that discussion will come to naught. It would be somewhat intellectually dishonest for any Government to advance such a scheme without having a strong idea about where the finance will come from. Without such clarity, the great worry is that many years could be spent in discussions, with the result that many lives and many properties and businesses could be blighted in the manner described by a number of Members across the House.
	There is little doubt that the creation of Transport for London under the direct responsibility of the Mayor of London has at least provided a structure for transport decision making here in the capital, but the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 were couched in such a way as to ensure that financial control remained firmly in the hands of central Government. I do not believe that can truly be a sensible way to proceed, although I accept that Crossrail has an importance that goes beyond the capital city. In view of Mayor Livingstone's record of financial profligacy, such control of finances might generate a collective sigh of relief from many London council tax payers who have already seen a whopping 105 per cent. increase in the mayoral precept on the London council tax over the last five years. Indeed, the prospect of Mayor Livingstone being issued a blank cheque for Crossrail is enough to make anyone shudder.
	Nevertheless, the stark financial reality is that all too often this Labour Government have regarded London as a convenient cash cow. The creaking London infrastructure, especially but not exclusively that of transport, treats residents and wealth-creating businesses alike with some disdain. Most independent commentators would estimate that every year, some 12 billion of public funds is transferred from the capital to the rest of the UK and some 1.5 billion of that is from business rates alone. There is little doubt that this is beginning to have an electoral effect, and the Government should beware.
	Issues of quality of life and the cost of living were increasingly important for my party in the capital during the general election campaign, and the swing from the Labour party to the Conservatives in London was greater than in any other region of the United Kingdom. I am proud that I have four hon. Friendsmy hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Putney (Justine Greening) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)in seats that would have remained in Labour hands had there been only an average national swing. On the grounds of electoral self-interest alone, I hope that the Government are now listening to the voice of London. I appreciate that the trend that I have articulated has been echoed by an increasingly worried cohort of London Labour Back Benchers.
	We now seek an investment commitment to Crossrail at the earliest opportunity, although I accept that there is no clear pathway to its funding. I am the first to admit that it is a complicated situation. No one is suddenly going to produce 10 billion, 15 billion or 20 billionI think we all realise that by the time Crossrail is built the cost is likely to be at the higher end of that rangebut over the past year the Mayor has been given what he and his new friends in government have euphemistically called prudential borrowing powers to complete the east London link, which is of course a crucial part of our Olympic 2012 successful bid, and therefore the programme for the future. In essence, that is a financial sleight of hand because the Mayor is allowed to borrow some 2.9 billion from future council tax receipts to complete the east London link. Despite the national importance of that transport project, the money will still come from London's local taxpayers. Apparently, that will be the case for the whole Crossrail scheme.
	In their desperation, London's largest businesses have tried to engage with the Government and offer some money on the table. As the Minister will be aware, the current proposal is for an additional 3 per cent. surcharge on the business rate over 50 years or, indeed, for some added-value capture scheme that reflects the projected long-term increase in property values as a result of the infrastructure being created. That is understandableeveryone can support it in principlebut the difficulty is, of course, how that bit of any increase in the value of a property is calculated. Understandably, business has been reluctant to declare its hand fully, without a firm commitment in advance from the Government to put up the bulk of the project's costs. I hope that the Minister will give at least some indication today about where he envisages some of the project's funding will come from.
	Inevitably, when the works start, there will be an immense amount of disruption to many London residents and businesses. As I mentioned in an earlier contribution, given the disruption in central London alone, I personally believe that it is very unlikely that we can go through the whole process of getting the Bill on to the statute book in enough time for work to begin before the Olympics. Nothing would be more disruptive than two or three years' upheaval in central London in the midst of the Olympics. In all honesty, I suspect that the Government already recognise that and therefore the timetable is being postponed to the middle of the next decade.
	I hope that my hon. Friends from other parts of the capital and beyond will forgive me if I focus my comments on my constituency, which has some important aspects to mention. I am assured that, although some of my constituents oppose Crossrail as a matter of principle, others, even those who face disruption in their lives, recognise many of its overall benefits. However, they are worried that, without a proper funding commitment and therefore a realistic timetable for how quickly work will commence and finish, their properties will be blighted. That has not been made any easier by the fact that the erstwhile chief executive of Crossrail, Norman Haste, quit it mid-May, before the necessary parliamentary approval process commenced. To a large extent, the Government had made his job increasingly impossible by dragging their feet on the funding required to make the whole Crossrail project viable.
	It is now of key importance that a full public consultation exercise take place on Crossrail's precise route in central London. The initial proposal suggested three possible routes. I am alarmed by the current proposal for a route just south of Oxford street because it is certain to cause massive disruption to the residential population of Mayfair, as well as damage to a large number of listed buildings and other residential properties. Some MembersI say this perhaps for the benefit of Labour Membersmay assume that Mayfair is somehow full of hugely wealthy investment bankers who live in large, multi-million pound houses. Nothing is further from the truth: the biggest number of complaints have come from two very large Peabody Trust buildings: one off Binney street and the other in Brown Hart Gardens in Mayfair. Indeed, the great bulk of the population of north Mayfair is made up of people who live in social housing, many of whom have done so for decades and their families may have done so for several generations.
	My great concern is that, in reality, they have no choice about where they live. The same applies with many of the licensing changes that are taking place. People who live in Soho, Covent Garden or Mayfair who are well off enough can decide to move if they find that the disruption is too bad, but we always forget that a significant number of people, particularly in central London, live in social housing. They have absolutely no choice about where they live. They are the most vulnerable people in our society, and they need everyonenot just hon. Members, but those in the city council, the Greater London assembly and, indeed, a range of non-governmental bodiesto stand up for their interests. I am sure that my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), as a former Westminster city councillor, would entirely endorse what I have had to say.
	If we are to minimise the complications caused by both compulsory purchase and possible structural damage, it is of key importance to give serious consideration to other routes, especially the northern interchange route. I accept that the proper place for such consideration is not the Floor of the House because that will take place in Committee. However, it is worth at least talking about the matter in limited detail at this stage so that I can put it on record.
	The housing association tenants in Mayfair often have no choice about where they live, as I have said, but they face the risk of severe disruption to their community. In Gilbert street in Mayfair, for example, the 1930s educational facility will be torn down to make way for a terminus to support the Crossrail link. The apartment blocks in the area will be subjected to a minimum of six years' building workseveral hon. Members have cited that time scale. Trucks will go in for at least 12 hours a day to dispose of rubble and a great deal of underground drilling will take place day and night. A shaft measuring 30 ft wide and 25 ft deep will be sunk to expel all the stale air. The residents feel that they have been neither properly informed, nor consulted. The building work will seriously disrupt the quality of life for countless local people, yet many residents are already in poor health, with some elderly and others similarly vulnerable.

Charles Walker: Does my hon. Friend think that Crossrail has given sufficient attention to the environmental impact of the work? His concerns have been expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, so they seem to run though most people's arguments.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. There is worry that insufficient emphasis has been given to a range of environmental issues throughout the consultation. Obviously, the green belt would not be affected in my constituency as it would be in those of many other hon. Members, but we still must consider environmental factors in my area.
	I would have some sympathy with any Government on this matter because some persistent complainants will not be complaining about a lack of consultation, but the outcome. If we go ahead with Crossrailsuch a scheme will have net benefitssome lives will inevitably be disrupted. The scheme will clearly cost an inordinate amount, which will have an effect on business and the council tax payers of London. I suspect that some of the cost will also be met by the general coffers. We can consult until the cows come home, but we must ultimately take a decision. That is the difficult side of being in government, so perhaps it is easier to be in opposition when considering such matters. I respect the fact that the Government must make decisions. However, we hear time and again the complaint from residents of not only central London, but the suburbs and places outside London, about a lack of consultation. I do not think that that represents average griping, but reflects a concern that I hope will be addressed in great detail in Committee.
	Several interest groups, such as the Grosvenor Estate and the US embassy, which is based in Grosvenor square, have great concerns about security, which I fear have been highlighted by the terrible events of only 12 days ago, not least because some of them took place in two great pinch-pointsone just by Edgware road and another by Aldgate East station. Both those places are not only right on the edge of my constituency, but very close to where much of the building work will take place at the Barbican and Paddington.
	Hon. Members who have visited the Grosvenor square part of central London in the past four years will know how the change to traffic arrangements around the square has been highly disruptive to many residents in surrounding roads. The current route proposed for Crossrail, which would go south of Oxford street, is of great concern to the US embassy because it is not clear how we would be able to tackle the serious security implications of large numbers of workmen operating in the vicinity of the embassy at all hours of the day and night over several years. The Crossrail northern interchange route would link the Barbican, King's Cross and St. Pancras, and Baker Street here in central London, and connect with all airports and tube lines. It would adjoin business areas along the Marylebone road and wide areas of regeneration that would otherwise not be touched by Crossrail. Unlike the proposed Crossrail scheme, the CNIR requires only one new interchange station.
	Normally, underground tunnels run under roads, parks and railways in order to reduce damage and the number of compensation claims. The authorised District and Metropolitan lines used cut and cover under roads as against narrow tube tunnels. The Jubilee line extension runs under railways for 2 km but even in that case there has been some evidence of ground subsidence. The twin Crossrail tunnels will be about 2.5 times the size, and it is clear that there will be substantial additional risk of subsidence.
	In addition, construction savings are supposed to be made under the scheme by tunnelling under shallower foundations of listed buildings and conservation areas, but the Crossrail safeguarding zone has two outer areas of possible subsidence up to 400 m wide under Bayswater, Mayfair, Soho, the City, of which I shall say more in a minute or two, and Georgian Spitalfields. I could not speak with the eloquence of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway), who defended the rights of his Spitalfields constituents but who is not present at the moment. I suspect that he was looking at the Crossrail cause clbre in terms not just of next year's local elections but of future general elections. No doubt the issue will run and run, conveniently for him, over that period.
	We are concerned that this hybrid Bill uses the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 to calculate compensation for disruptive work, which is not only a denial of modern human rights law but reimburses property owners only for specific building repairs. Under EU legislation, other interested parties will inevitably qualify for full compensation, which goes directly to concerns about funding and the overall cost of the project.
	I appreciate that one or two colleagues wish to speak and I am sorry to have detained the House for so long, but I want to end with some heartfelt comments from the dozens of letters that I have received from constituents in the Barbican about the likely impact to their estate. They are concerned about the effect on the structural integrity of the Barbican estate from the proposed tunnelling works and particularly from the proposed construction of the cross-over cavern under the estate. In the short term, their concerns include the environmental impact of the noise, dust, vibration and traffic congestion over the next three or four years, which are inevitable in any Crossrail development work. They are keen that the Bill should contain rules that will constrain construction activities to offer no less protection than those that apply to other contractors working in the City of London. I have continually heard concern expressed about the long-term consequences of the operation of Crossrail for the immediate environment, including the effects of noise and vibration from the operation of the railway, and that Crossrail should be designed, constructed and maintained in order to minimise the risk of such effects.
	It has been a pleasure to have had an opportunity to put some of our concerns on the record. I appreciate that inevitably such debates become parochialwe are all describing the concerns that affect our constituentsbut we should raise our sights a little, and in particular to the long-term benefits of Crossrail.

Stephen Pound: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the eloquent case that he has made for his constituentsnot least for the huddled masses of the vast, echoing council estates of north Mayfair, whose denizens eke out a miserable existence. Does he accept that exactly the same was said at the time of the Jubilee line extension and the Victoria line works? Who remembers the inconvenience of that work and who nowadays ignores the great benefits and advantages that that has brought us? Does he not agree that, to use an infelicitous phrase, it is a price worth paying?

Mark Field: That is entirely fair. I was coming to precisely that. We must raise our sights beyond some of the inevitable concerns expressed by our constituents. We should not ignore them and we want to do our best to mitigate them, but we must look at the long-term benefitsand we stand to experience some tremendous benefits from Crossrail. Much of my concern centres on the funding, because it is not clear where that will come from, but there is little doubt that the project will be of real benefit not only to all Londoners but to many from all parts of the country. If we are to maintain our strength and force as a global commercial city, without which this country would face grave problems, we desperately need to ensure that the project goes ahead.

Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent speech and he has put the case for his constituentsfor example, in the Barbicanand the need for the quality of the work, and the sensitivity with which it is done, to be of a high standard. Does he agree that the best way to achieve that is for the construction labour force to be fully trade unionised? That would improve health and safety, as well as the quality of the work.

Mark Field: We have had such a harmonious debate and I thought that it would end on a wonderful note. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to look after his own manor. He will, no doubt, wish to speak on Thursday when we discuss the Olympic bid, if he is not doing more sensible things such as going to the test match. He must be very proud that we won the 2012 Olympic bid and I am sure that he will ensure that all the workmen who will build our new Olympic stadium are highly unionised. I hope that he will allow a more free-market approach to what happens in my constituency when it comes to Crossrail.
	I have now said more than enough. I thank the House for its indulgence and I hope that the Bill gets a Second Reading. However, the debate has raised some serious concerns and I hope that the Minister will take them on board not only when he winds up tonight, butmore importantlyin the months and years ahead.

Clive Efford: I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in this debate, because I want to speak up for south-east London, which has long been forgotten in terms of transport infrastructure. As I have said on many occasions, we do not have direct access to the London underground. Much investment across London goes into the underground and much of the debate about London's transport is concerned with it. However, many parts of London are not served by it and we rely heavily on Network SouthEast and, where that fails, the only alternative for travel from my constituency to central London is the car. We also have over-congested roads.
	Crossrail is essential to the future of London's transport network. If London is ever to make a significant attempt to meet the future needs of its commuters, the scheme is essential. However, it must be properly planned and the wider benefits for the entire community must be taken into account, not just for those in the Thames gateway or further along the Thames corridor. It has long been the experience of people from my constituency that they look on as developments take place along the riverfront. Such developments are welcome, but the planning for those schemes includes little thought about how the wider community can link into those schemes and benefit from them. London has been dogged for too long by such second-rate planning, with too often the cheapest option taken and the wider benefits unconsidered.
	The population of London is projected to grow by 800,000 by 2016, and jobs in London will increase by 600,000 by that time. Along with that growth will come the demand for extra capacity on our transport network. It is estimated that Crossrail will provide some 40 per cent. of the extra capacity that London will need. It will more than double capacity through the central London corridor that is currently provided by the London underground and it will reduce journey times by up to 40 per cent. However, that does not mean that Crossrail should go ahead regardless of the wider concerns of many parts of London.
	Most of the jobs that will be created over the next 10 or more years will be in the Thames gateway area, the Isle of Dogs, the City, the west end and around Heathrow. Crossrail will be vital for people who want to access these areas. Most of my constituents currently travel towards central London. In the past, London had a transport network that was rather like spokes of a wheel. People have been living in suburbs and have travelled in on rail networks. If they were lucky enough to live near the tube or on the tube, they travelled by that means into central London. The development of the Thames Gateway and east London will change that fundamentally. I am already being approached by people who want to work on the reconstruction that is taking place in the Thames Gateway area. They want access to the Thames Gateway for training so that they can have the opportunity of taking the jobs that will be available.
	The future travel patterns of people from my part of London will change completely as development gathers pace. The need to travel north across the river and possibly go east, rather than west into central London, will become more common. Crossrail needs to recognise the change that will take place.
	The cost of introducing a station along the Crossrail route after it has been built would be extremely costly. That is why I want to draw attention to the amendment that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), although it was not selected. He asks in that amendment for a railway station at Woolwich to accommodate the future needs of people from south-east London who will need to have access to the Thames corridor and the Thames Gateway area, to travel to the wider areas to which Crossrail will offer connections. We need a station at Woolwich.
	Woolwich is in a strategic position in south-east London, where it could become a transport hub for that area. It makes no sense to bypass a strategic centre. It would make a mockery of the transport policies that have been published over many years, which are full of well-meaning statements about integrated transport, if we did not take the opportunity to make Woolwich a transport hub. We have the opportunity for a major infrastructure development to do just that, to become an integrated transport hub for an area of London that for too long has been deprived.
	The proposals are for Crossrail trains to travel past Woolwich, the first stop south of the river being Abbey Wood. I welcome the fact that there is to be a station at Abbey Wood. However, that cannot be considered to be a strategic location for a major station and a major development such as Crossrail. Woolwich is bypassed because it is cheaper to do so. Such second-rate planning has dogged us for too long.
	Woolwich is served by 18 bus routes, plus two night buses. The docklands light railway will arrive in Woolwich in 200809. The Royal Arsenal is being rebuilt. It is already home to thousands of people who live in the new buildings, and there are thousands more to come.
	For too long the needs of south-east London have been overlooked. Twelve of London's most socially deprived wards are in the area around Woolwich. The fact that the east Thames corridor has been overlooked for too long is recognised in the Thames Gateway development programme. We cannot overlook the level of deprivation that exists south of the river in areas such as the one that I represent. If my constituents cannot access Crossrail, they will suffer enormously as developments along the Thames Gateway take place. I have already mentioned that we do not have direct access to the London underground system. We also face the problem of a lack of planning for surface transport. For example, we have seen no major developments in bus networks.
	Last week, I spoke to a group of young people who were hanging around in my constituency and asked them what they did with their time. Our local cinema is close to North Greenwich station, which is in the north of my borough. I asked, Do you ever go down to the cinema? Do you ever make your way down to the new facility there? They said, It is too far. The bus takes too long. We have had the Jubilee line in my borough for more than five years, but there is no direct bus link. If those young people wanted to use our local bus network to travel to the cinema close to North Greenwich station, it would take two hours out of their day. No young person will consider that. A commuter travelling to London to work will not consider that transport as an option, so a heavy burden is placed on the south-east rail network, on which there is too much reliance. It is frequently overcrowded and that forces people on to our roads. Larger schemes such as Crossrail must meet the wider needs of existing communities as well as communities that will be developed along the Thames Gateway. Buses are not regarded as an alternative for travelling into central London, so access to Crossrail is essential if we are to provide a decent transport network for people in south-east London.
	The Thames Gateway is one of the biggest regeneration areas in Europe. A total of 200,000 homes will be built there, and there is capacity to build 30,000 more homes than are envisaged in the Government's housing strategy. Some 150,000 jobs will be developed in the area. Inevitably, people focus on the Thames Gateway when they talk about Crossrail, but we must look at the wider community. According to the Thames Gateway partnerships, development will benefit south-east London, but that depends on how we define south-east London. History teaches us that if we do not pay attention to problems at the outset it is expensive to put them right after the development is complete. The docklands, for instance, were developed before the docklands light railway was built. The Jubilee line was built through the docklands much later. The lack of public transport infrastructure proved to be a major fault in the development of the royal docks and it was some time before people could experience the wider benefits of the area.
	I can only demonstrate what we are planning to do with Crossrail by making a comparison with the opening of the Hammersmith and City line. Imagine the trains on that route failing to stop at Hammersmith broadway and the line ending at Ravenscourt Park. Such a proposal would be met with derision. Similarly, if trains on the Jubilee line did not stop at Canary Wharf, people would wonder about the benefits of such a transport link for the communities it was intended to serve. The failure of Crossrail trains to stop at Woolwich will have a similar effect on south-east London. The area has been a poor relation of public transport development in south-east London for far too long, and we will not countenance a failure to develop Crossrail there.
	Woolwich is not included in the proposals because of costit is not because of a lack of demand. Crossrail's own briefing says:
	Crossrail will establish a brand new network of services linking areas across London and beyond. This will allow existing suburban rail services to run through London, reducing overcrowding on Underground lines and reducing congestion at a number of busy national rail stations.
	We must make that statement come true. We cannot allow the development of Crossrail to bypass people in south-east London. I sincerely hope that the Select Committee will take on board the arguments in favour of a station at Woolwich on the Crossrail line, and that the Bill will be amended accordingly.

Andrew Pelling: London is a world city, and as we are competing against New York and Tokyo it is important to take note of the improvements that have been made to the connections between the mass transit system in New York and one New York airport and the augmentation of the coach system in Japan with a direct rail link into Tokyo station. Even Norway has built a rail system that runs from Gardamoen to Oslo and beyond.
	I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, as it provides the prospect of a direct link from Heathrow to the City of London. The City of London Corporation has long lobbied strongly on behalf of Crossrail.
	Other benefits will come. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) was right to point out that the potential benefits go beyond the dry language of regeneration. For example, the London Development Agency is promoting the Thames gateway, and Crossrail offers the prospect of significant development there. It will promote further growth along the corridor beside the Thames valley, even if my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is concerned that the system will provide only 19th-century style parliamentary trains.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the many difficulties pointed out in the debate and questions about the remit of the Committee, the benefits of Crossrail for regeneration and jobs, and the difference that it could make to constituencies such as mine in Ilford, North can only be a good thing?

Andrew Pelling: Indeed. It is important not to forget the positive elements of the Bill, and I know that my hon. Friend is very positive about the impact that Crossrail would have on Ilford, North.
	A substantial part of the Bill deals with the schedule of works and the number of shafts that will be driven down through London streets. That leaves the Government with the conundrum of when to proceed with the project, subject of course to financing. It is difficult to see it being a strong point for London if visitors to the London 2012 Olympics would be subject to such constraints. It is important to bear in mind that the proposals for Crossrail come forward at a time when Thameslink 2000 is still on the books as a project for London. The Thameslink project is further advanced in the planning approval process and the planning inspector has concluded that that scheme will be beneficial. His concerns relating to specific issues at Blackfriars, London Bridge and Borough market have been dealt with. Crossrail cannot be completed by 2012, but the Thameslink project could well be completed by then and provide beneficial links with the Olympic Javelin service to and from St. Pancras.
	Improved passenger distribution from the King's Cross-St. Pancras hub would link in well with the cross-channel rail link domestic services coming in in 2009, as well as providing greater capacity for the north-south axis, which is important for London's transport. Greater capacity will also be provided on the heavily congested lines around London Bridge, a major pinch-point on the existing rail network. That is important to my constituents in Croydon.
	It is good that the Bill reflects a strong intention to consult transport providers and Transport for London. In the name of joined-up government, there should also be consultation with the Olympic development authority and with transport users through the London Transport Users Committee. I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about proper compensation. I hope that within the lines of deviation that are provided for in the Bill, flexibility will be possible, bearing in mind the effects of the Croydon Tramlink Act 1994 and the fact that people outside the lines of deviation have yet to receive any compensation whatever, even though the tram system has been in place for some time.
	Other hon. Members have referred to Crossrail falling within the ambit of the Greater London authority and the Mayor, and clauses 46 and 53 allow the Government to devolve that responsibility to the Mayor. Given the Mayor's ambition to have a London rail authority, will the Minister explain in his winding-up speech whether the Government want the Mayor's ambit to extend beyond Greater London, if the line runs from Shenfield to Maidstone or, indeed, Reading?

Robert Wilson: I will not detain the House, but I want to make some general comments about the Bill before turning to some specific concerns about Crossrail's impact on my constituency, which contains Reading station. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) for their support for Reading as the western terminus, and I am also grateful to those hon. Members who signed my early-day motion to that effect.
	Nobody doubts that the construction of an east-west railway across London will have powerful economic benefits for London, and I strongly support that element of Crossrail, but the project misses a once-in-a-generation opportunity to serve the needs of the wider south-east, to which it could bring substantial economic and environmental benefits.
	I understand that Crossrail is a metro scheme, not a regional commuter scheme, which exists to support the Mayor's transport strategy, but I am not sure whether that should be the case. Its scope should be much more ambitiousI would prefer a regional service linked to major transport hubs, which would make economic and environmental sense. Crossrail will not serve new and growing population centres, so the projected additional revenues barely cover the projected additional operating costs. A potential nightmare scenario involves more traffic on regional roads outside London as freight is pushed off the tracks and passengers decide that they cannot and will not accept a slow stopping service.
	I am also concerned whether the project is fundable. At the moment, it will succeed only with heavy taxation of both business and individuals. Crossrail's funding gap is about 6 billion or 7 billion, although it may be more than thatmy hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has suggested that it could be as large as 15 billion or 16 billion, which is possible, and it is unrealistic to expect either business or individuals to pay such a huge shortfall. We should not forget that Londoners will probably face a substantial bill for hosting the 2012 Olympics. Perhaps the Minister will provide us with an estimate of the cost burden of both Crossrail and the Olympics on Londoners in his winding-up speech.
	I am puzzled why a railway that will serve so much of east London will not include a link to London City airport, which has poor transport links. Crossrail will not integrate with the south-east's airport networkboth London City airport and Heathrow have poor transport services, and Crossrail will not serve Stansted at all. Is that really the integrated transport system that this Government promise us year after year?
	I was offended by the view expressed by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter). The idea that national transport hubs should only be located in London fails to take account of the important role played by the regions. I am worried about the powers that the Bill confers. The chief executive of the BAA was right to express concerns that the Heathrow Express may find itself part of a compulsory purchase order under those powers. After what happened with Railtrack, that could further undermine economic confidence in the viability of big rail projects. The powers appear to require the rail regulator to favour Crossrail above all else. That could have an enormous impact on freight and commuter passenger services, which concerns First Great Western. I seek the Minister's assurance that freight and commuter services will have full equality with Crossrail's metro service.
	I come to Crossrail's significance for my constituents in Reading, East. The project's sloganCrossing the capital, connecting the UKwill certainly not be believed in my constituency. It is proposed that Crossrail should go through the relatively small communities of Iver, Burnham and Taplow, terminating at Maidenhead, while ignoring Reading, a town with a population of more than 130,000 that lies only a short distance to the west. If the project really were to connect the UK, surely the fact that Reading railway station is already served by no fewer than four different franchisesFirst Great Western, First Great Western Link, South West Trains and Virgin Trainswould make it an attractive candidate for inclusion. Outside London, only Birmingham New Street is a busier station than Reading. My predecessor in Reading, East clearly understood that, as do those of all shades of political opinion in Reading when calling for the scheme's extension.
	As the Secretary of State said, the extension of the scheme to Reading comes with a price tag. For approximately 300 million, the line between Reading and Maidenhead could be electrifieda small additional expense on a project estimated at 10 billion, but one that would bring many more passengers, and therefore revenue, with it. However, that would not be the end of the story for Reading. In addition to the electrification of the line between Reading and Maidenhead, the station would require resignalling, rebuilding to cope with the extra capacity required, and remodelling of the east and west junctions. The cost would be significant. However, the money should be provided by Network Rail, whose duty should be to upgrade Reading's platforms, signalling and junctions because it is already a bottleneck. Severe constraints on the First Great Western main line are placing serious capacity constraints on current and future rail operations on the regional and national rail network. I hope that the Minister will commit to meet me and local authority officers to discuss the funding of the expansion of Reading station.
	With the UK's version of silicon valley based around Reading, our local businesses strongly require a direct link to Heathrow airport in addition to our direct link to Gatwick. The lack of such a link is a barrier to the future development of our town and the wider economy. Those wishing to travel to Heathrow via the existing rail service are forced to endure a wasted trip travelling from Reading to Paddington and then westward again on the Heathrow Express. Given such a significant and diverse business presence in my constituency and the surrounding area, the failure to provide such a link is, frankly, unacceptable. I would appreciate the Minister's thoughts on that and on how, for the sake of the Thames valley regional economy, it could be addressed.
	It is extremely important to the regional economy that an upgrade at Reading is included in an improved version of Crossrail, whether now or in future. I therefore ask the Minister that the route as far as Reading be subject to safeguarding. That would give some comfort that an improved scheme may be designed to improve Reading at some point in the future. I am advised that that would require private legislation, but it would help if he could confirm that Ministers would be minded to approve such legislation.
	I noted the Secretary of State's incredible contortions earlier today regarding his instruction to the Select Committee on the termini. It appears that those contortions reflected genuine disarray rather than any attempt to mislead the House. However, I believe that, as matters stand, that precludes the constituents of Reading, East from petitioning the Select Committee to change the termini. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to withdraw the instruction because my constituents should have the right to petition for an improved project and an improved deal for them.
	In summary, I am far from convinced by the Bill. The Secretary of State's chaotic response has not given me further reassurance. The measure represents a missed opportunity to bring south-east rail transport into the 21st century and provide a significantly improved service. However, its main benefit is that it is before us today. The question with which I must therefore wrestle on behalf of my constituents is whether an imperfect scheme is better than none.

John Hayes: The debate has been interesting, with many important contributions. Those of Back Benchers contained rather more clarity than those of Government Front-Bench Members. Let me therefore first deal with the contentious matter of the instruction.
	The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary were confused about the instruction; let me be clear. The instruction's purpose is to interpret for the Committee the principle of the Bill. The Committee will not be permitted to accept petitions that do not deal with that principle. The custom of the House is clear: those who petition the Committee must have locus standi. In other words, they must have a special or direct interest in the concerns of the Bill or the instruction.
	It is not, as the Secretary of State promised earlier, the case that anyone can petition the Committee. It is not the case, as the Secretary of State pretended earlier, that the Committee can consider any matter of its choice. The Committee is strictly guided by the instruction. Let any colleagues who were seduced by the Secretary of State's silky charmsI was not, but we Taliban Tories are hard to persuadebe clear: by voting for the instruction, they narrow the terms of the Committee's consideration so that it cannot consider some of the many important concerns that my hon. Friends and hon. Members in other parties raised today.
	During our interesting debate, Hans Christian Andersen was mentioned twice and Monty Python was mentioned once. Let me raise the stakes and remind hon. Members that Leonardo da Vinci once remarked:
	Obstacles do not crush me. Every obstacle yields to stern resolve.
	Benjamin Disraeli said:
	The secret of success is constancy of purpose.
	Yet there has been no constancy of purpose about Crossrail on the Government's part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) noted, the management of the project to date gives rise to great concern. Those concerns are not confined to the Opposition. Labour Members, businesses in London, commuters and the affected communities have raised anxieties about a wide range of issues.
	Perhaps the most profound concern is the doubt about the funding of the project. As I said earlier, in a written question only a week ago, I asked the Under-Secretary for the latest estimated cost of the Crossrail scheme. He suggested that it was 10.29 billion. Yet today, the Secretary of State said that it was likely to be 15 billion or 16 billion. It has risen by between 5 billion and 6 billion in the space of a week.

Alistair Darling: The figure of 10.2 billion was at 2002 prices, as was made clear. The reply refers to the last assessment, which was made in 2004. The price that I cited earlier is in cash terms and reflects the fact that construction did not start in 2002 but would start, on the current plans, in 2007. The prices are consequently increased. I was therefore giving the House the up-to-date cash position. I reiterate that the figure of 10.2 billion was at 2002 prices.

John Hayes: So we can take from that, given the rate of inflation between 2002 and today, that the prices have not simply gone up as one might expect, but spiralled.

Alistair Darling: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The prices reflect the fact that the construction of Crossrail would, on any view, take place over many years. So some of the money would not actually be paid until the far end of the period. In order to get a cash figure, therefore, we needed to make a calculation as to how much would be involved. The price that I quoted simply reflects the fact that one set of prices was at 2002 prices, and what I was giving the House was the cash figure that we estimate today. That is the reason for the difference. This is a perfectly conventional way of doing it, but it is important that the House should get the right picture.

John Hayes: That is true. Hon. Members will understand our scepticism on this point, given the earlier confusion in the Secretary of State's mind about the instruction. They will understand if we are rather doubtful about some of the figures that he is now presenting to us. I would say to him as kindly as I can that, had we had a better defined business plan and better defined budgets, and had potential investors had a clearer understanding of the vehicles that they might use to invest in the project, the Government would not be in the mess that they are in today.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: No, I must move on. I am going to mention the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) favourably in a moment. He might want to intervene on the back of those compliments, rather than in haste now.
	Had the Government been more precise about some of the matters that I have just mentioned, much of the doubt and speculation that their uncertainty has inevitably fuelled would not have arisen. The Secretary of State may shake his head, but I have met many people associated with Crossrailas he and the Minister will have done in the course of their businessboth from the railway industry and from London business, who endorse the fact that there is a lack of clarity. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made an important contribution earlier. He said that we must be careful about what he described as counterproductive cost-driven delays. He went on to say that elements of the project that were eliminated to save money might in the end deter investment. Those were profound points that the Government would do well to note. I have never understood why the right hon. Gentleman now finds himself on the Back Benches.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I put it to him, however, that before he starts throwing stones at the Government over Crossrail, he might like to ponder his own party's record on the issue, and the uncertainty that was created in the 1990s when the Bill did not proceed because of administrative confusion and a lack of leadership from the party of which he is a member.

John Hayes: The House would not want me to delve into the realms of ancient history when we have important matters before us to consider tonight.
	There are real doubts about the funding of the project. There are even more profound doubtsI almost hesitate to say itabout when the Treasury really backs it. I have no doubt about the commitment of the Secretary of State and his ministerial team, but is the Treasury really behind the project? As Thomas the Tank Engine might have said, this is a case of Hurry up, Gordon!
	There is also considerable concern about how the construction of the project could disrupt other services. The rail industry estimates that the construction will affect 2,200 freight, commuter, long-distance passenger and airport services per day, along two principal routes. In particular, freight terminals along both routes could suffer significant disruption. On the Great Western route, 12 terminals, mostly on slow lines, would be permanently affected. My hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) made the point that there is a real issue of disruption caused by displacement. We heard that that could even have an effect as far afield as Norwich and Oxford. The idea that this project should be considered solely as a metro service, and solely as the concern of London, when it has these wider implications, is way off beam.
	In addition, a number of constituencies will be particularly affected. In the west, Crossrail will terminate in Maidenhead, which has an extremely busy commuter station served by fast and semi-fast trains at peak times. As my right hon. Fried the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made clear, the introduction of Crossrail not only threatens to replace those with a slow stopping service, but might reduce the number of trains, and worst of all damage that aesthetic masterpiece, the Brunel bridge. Can we really ask the people of Maidenhead to endure this for five or six years for a worse service than they have at the moment?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating the points that I made earlier about the impact of Crossrail on Maidenhead. The residents of Maidenhead will not only get a worse service and have to suffer the view of Brunel's bridge being destroyed by the electrification gantries, but the station at Maidenhead will have to be completely redeveloped. At the moment, there is no feeling that there is even the space available for the proposed depot. Is not that yet another reason why the line should go to Reading rather than stopping at Maidenhead?

John Hayes: As the hon. Member for Reading, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) said, there is a case to be made for that, and the Select Committee should certainly consider it, which is precisely the argument of a variety of Members in relation to its remit and terms of reference. When I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, I thought to myself, With a determined and articulate representative like that, it is no wonder that she saw off the Liberals in Maidenhead and will always do so when the test comes.
	Speaking of Liberals, there are a variety of local environmental concerns, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) pointed them out. There are also fears that far from being a regional railway, Crossrail is now a metro schemeno longer part of an integral railway network. Some say that the project is increasingly being driven by the Mayor of Londonhardly the best person to deliver a train service to the people of Berkshire, Essex, Kent or elsewhere.
	There is much local opposition to the proposed 24-hour maintenance depot at Rush Green. The petition had 2,302 signatories, and what a feisty campaigner they have in my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I tell him, the people of Romford and the House that when we are returned to office, which will be before the project starts if this Government have anything to do with it, we will reprieve the people of Romford and consider seriously the alternative highlighted tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)the North Pole depot west of Paddington. When the Eurotunnel rail link is complete, that depot will become vacant, and it seems to be a suitable alternative to blighting the lives of the people of Romford, as has been properly drawn to the House's attention.
	In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) expressed concerns about Heathrow. The BAA has expressed its concern:
	The Bill as drafted, combined with Crossrail's projected services, would decrease the proportion of rail passengers travelling to Heathrow.
	According to a preliminary study by an independent transport consultant commissioned by the BAA, the replacement of the dedicated non-stop Heathrow Express services with stopping Crossrail services could result in the loss of 3 to 4 per cent. of Heathrow airport's public transport share. Such a result would mean that the objective increase in public transport access to the airport as required by the Government's White Paper, 2The Future of Air Transport, would not be realised. The current proposals will take over paths and platform space already safeguarded by BAA for the Airtrack project which would link Heathrow with Waterloo for the first time. Moreover, terminal 5 does not have the capacity to accommodate the Heathrow Express and Crossrail. Crossrail's proposal therefore implies that either Airtrack or Heathrow Express to terminal 5 is no longer possible. Surely it is not too much to ask that we maintain good public transport access to Heathrow airport.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said, the Bill as currently drafted threatens fundamental principles of independent regulationanother point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and others. The powers under the Bill, if exercised, could negatively affect Network Rail's ability to deliver services and challenge the wider principles of independent regulation. That would threaten business confidence, with wider implications for future private sector investment.
	The Crossrail Bill also creates a potential conflict. It instructs the Office of Rail Regulation to give priority to Crossrail. Clause 15 of the Olympics Bill, however, would place the ORR under an obligation to assist in the development of the Olympics, with a clear implication that it should give priority to the Olympics. Which is to come first? We heard nothing about that from the Secretary of State. Will the Minister clarify the matter, as I would have expected the Government to be absolutely clear about how Crossrail and the Olympics interact and overlap?
	The Bill also threatens the expropriation of private property rights. It gives the Secretary of State power to take over, without compensation, Heathrow Express, in which BAA has invested around 750 million over the past decade.
	The Select Committee must be allowed to satisfy itself in regard to: concerns about Crossrail's construction; powers taken under the Bill; and railway planning in the context of the Olympics. That is why we tabled our instruction to the Committee. The Government must address other important questions. What potential is there for capacity growth? Have the Government affirmed tonight that Reading remains the objective beyond Maidenhead, or have they merely confused the House because of their own confusion? Does the increasing involvement of the Mayor of London mean that Crossrail will remain a metro service, or will it eventually serve regional needs?
	It is claimed that Crossrail will provide indirect benefits by releasing capacity at Liverpool Street station so that more trains can run from the Lee valley to Stansted. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire pointed out, train operators have said that that will not work because the route is already at the limit of its capacity elsewhere. Is there potential for capacity to expand to services to Stansted and other growth areas?
	In his opening statement, the Secretary of State said very little that could remove the uncertainty surrounding the funding of the project. In public, business leaders say they are behind the project, and indeed they and we remain behind it in principle. In private, however, they tell me of their grave concerns about their contribution. It is not simply a question of size; they are also concerned about whether they will have a meaningful say in the project's management. If business is expected to make a major contribution, it will expect to have some say in the governance of Crossrail. I do not think that that is unreasonable, but the Government and Crossrail have only just addressed the issue.
	We must get this project right. If Crossrail does not happen, that will undermine business confidence and the Government's ability to deliver part-funded infrastructure projects in the future. We know that the Government have committed themselves in a very significant way. An investigation of Crossrail in 2004 revealed that 265 staff members were involved inplanning the project. According to another investigation, rents on prestige offices in St James's park for Cross London Rail Links, the parent company, were costing 745,000 a year. In answer to a question that I tabled recently, the Minister said that in the last financial year those office costs had trebled to 1,907,000. He also revealed that his Department had spent 1,937,000 on consultancy in the last financial year, in answer to a question that I tabled on 12 July.

Peter Luff: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I happily give way to my hon. Friend, very briefly.

Peter Luff: I know that Superlink is controversial in this place, but can my hon. Friend tell me how much public money has been dedicated to it?

John Hayes: I understand that the Superlink project is privately funded and I have met representatives. I do not necessarily share my hon. Friend's unbridled enthusiasm for the project, but it is important for the Select Committee to consider all the issues in our instruction, with its broader remitas opposed to the narrow, blinkered approach recommended to the Committee by the Secretary of State and his colleagues.
	Crossrail has been spending 1 million a week for the last three years, and now it wants even more money so that it can do the same for the next three years. Yet we do not know whether digging will ever begin on either of the two tunnels, or whether a single piece of track will ever be laid. There is still no clarity, there is still no business plan, there is still no well-defined vehicle for investment, and there is still no certainty about the budget. Perhaps it is the Treasury's doubts about the scheme that threaten to undermine it. Those doubts will surely grow in the light of the successful Olympic bid.
	We will vote with the Government tonight becauselike the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and most other Members who have spokenwe believe that an east-west link for London is vital to Londoners' quality of life and the economy of London. Londoners, however, deserve better than the mixture of muddle and delay that has characterised the Government's approach to this projectand throughout that time, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent. I suspect that under the present Government Crossrail will remain a ghost train on a phantom line.

Derek Twigg: I am grateful to hon. Members for this valuable debate. There have been a number of contributions and I shall attempt briefly to deal with them. Our debate is not the end, but the beginning of the process. We have had a good debate and seen wide support throughout the House for the Bill. Members brought up issues that concerned them either in their own constituencies or in a wider context.
	When the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) opened for the Opposition, he seemed very supportive of the Bill, but the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) seemed unable in his wind-up speech to enumerate any reasons why the Conservatives were supporting the Bill. He advanced reasons for being against the Bill and then said that the Opposition were going to vote in favour of it in principle. It was strange that he spent so much time doing that. I do not know whether he wants to provide any reasons for supporting the Bill now.
	The concerns expressed by hon. Members and their constituents will be given a fair hearing before the Select Committee, which will consider all the material put to it in its quasi-judicial role. Those directly affected by the Bill will be able to petition against it and, if successful, their case will heard by a Select Committee both in the House and in the other place.
	I want to respond to points made in the debate about the petitions and the instructions. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is for the Select Committee to consider the petitions that come before it. The Government have tabled an instruction that sets out the specific proposition of running a railway between Maidenhead in the west and Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east, with intermediate stations. The purpose of the instruction is to give the Committee a clear sense of the shape and form of Crossrail. The Secretary of State made it clear on several occasions that he expects the Select Committee to be able to consider representations about and objections to the route. If the Select Committee believes that the objections have merit, it can report them to the House. The Secretary of State spelled out that the Government have chosen to take a light-touch approach to the instructions, so I expect the Committee to consider any representations that it receives. I want to make it clear that, if the Committee thinks that it cannot consider any matters that it judges have merit, the Government will be prepared to consider the terms of the instruction so that the House has every opportunity properly to discuss the Bill.

Alan Duncan: That is very confusing. What the House says does not depend on what Ministers then say can happen but on what this House says Ministers and Committees can do. Has the Minister confirmed with the Clerks of the House that what the Secretary of State says is rightthat those who petition to say that the route should be extended to Reading can be entertained? Can that happen or not?

Derek Twigg: Let me repeat what I said so that the hon. Gentleman understands it. I am making it clear that, if the Select Committee thinks that it cannot consider any matters that it judges to have merit, the Government are prepared to consider the terms of the instruction so that the House will have every opportunity properly to discuss the Bill. The Select Committee can do that.

Peter Luff: That is a wholly inadequate assurance. What the Government are saying is that they might find parliamentary time if the Select Committee objects to the nature of the instruction before it, but what the House needs tonight is an assurance that the Committee can look at the Reading option. That is what the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, but the Minister is falling woefully short of that now.

Derek Twigg: We have given a clear undertaking that we believe that it can.
	I would like to deal with the contributions of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made a point about the constituency benefits. He acknowledged difficulties around construction, but felt that the benefits outweighed them. He was glad to support the Bill, although he was aware that some petitions might come from his constituency. Despite the instruction, he felt that there were clear benefits from the Bill. He specifically mentioned the overcrowding of the Central line and stressed the importance of it being part of an integrated network.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made a powerful speech about several issues in his constituency, particularly about the need for a Woolwich station. As he knows, there has been considerable discussion about that. Concerns have been expressed in his constituencymy hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) also made the point in his speechabout the affordability of the development and the number of passengers who would want to use the station. It would be deep underground and the depth would obviously add to the cost. I have said, and have written to my right hon. Friend, that we shall reconsider whether the proposal is possible but, at this stage, the case has not been made.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. To avoid the potential for judicial review on an enormous infrastructure project, may I confirm that the advice of the Clerks given to you and Mr. Speaker matches the interpretation offered to the House tonight by the Secretary of State and the Minister?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to give advice on the interpretation of motions.

Derek Twigg: rose

Clive Efford: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Minister reply to the point of order?

Derek Twigg: I do not think that I can add to the comments that I made to the House a few moments ago.

Clive Efford: It is far more expensive to introduce a station after a line has been opened than while it is being constructed. We must take on board the fact that it will be too late to make a decision about the station after the line is completed. On what basis has my hon. Friend made the decision that the case has not been made for a station at Woolwich?

Derek Twigg: As I said when I was referring to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, we do not think that passenger numbers would justify a new station, as there are alternatives; nor would the cost, owing to the depth at which the tunnel would have to be built. However, I reassure my hon. Friend that, although we do not think that a case has been made, we shall look at the situation again, but I can give no guarantees at this stage.

Theresa May: I am sorry that the Minister is getting so many interventions on this point, but I want to make a final attempt at clarification. It seems to me that the situation is this: the motion that we shall be asked to consider this evening states that the Select Committee cannot consider Reading as a terminus for the line; the Secretary of State, in his speech, said that the Select Committee can consider Reading as a terminus for the line; the legal advice from Officers of the House is that the Select Committee cannot consider Reading as the terminus for the line; the Minister has just said that the Select Committee can consider Reading, but it might not think that it can consider Reading in which case it can ask the Government if it may consider Reading. Will the Minister please clarify the situation?

Derek Twigg: We believe that it could. If the Committee comes back to us, we shall consider its recommendations.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are receiving conflicting advice and the House is very confused. I think it needs guidance from the Chair on what the motion actually means. Ministers are saying one thing, but we believe that the advice we are receiving from Clerks may say something else. It is therefore, I suggest, a matter for the Chair to give guidance to the House about what we are actually voting on and what it will mean in practice. May I seek guidance from the Chair about whether we can or cannot consider Reading under the motion before us?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Government laid the motion before the House and it will be the responsibility of the Committee to interpret it, with advice, if necessary, from the Clerks of the House.

Derek Twigg: I shall continue to reply to the constituency issues that hon. Members have raised.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised several issues about the role of Network Rail, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier. My hon. Friend also referred to the effects on services and freight. That again was made clear earlier: we do not expect major effects on freight. There will be issues to consider during the construction phase, but we shall be talking to all partners and all bodies to move the process forward and come to agreement through negotiation. The compensation levels that he mentioned will be set as per the standard compensation arrangements.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) mentioned the Reading issue, so let me make it clear why we have not included Reading. Obviously, we shall consult on that process, but we believe that the case is not made because of the passenger numbers and because we do not believe that passengers from Reading would use that service when they can use a non-stopping service to Paddington.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) made a powerful point about economic development and regeneration and one of the many benefits of Crossrail is that it will contribute to the regeneration of large parts of London, particularly the east of London. He made the point about capacity and population movements and the importance of transport in that respect.

James McGovern: I have listened intently and patiently to the debate and understand why most hon. Members have spoken about how this project affects their constituencies. However, I would like to ask about the national benefits. How many jobs would be created over the lifetime of the project and would the Government be able to legislate to ensure that UK companies are looked upon favourably in the tendering process?

Derek Twigg: No, we cannot legislate, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. Obviously, the chief beneficiaries are London and the south-east, but Crossrail has national benefits in terms of access to London, which hundreds of thousands of commuters use each day coming from different parts of the United Kingdom. Jobs will be created in construction and people will be employed in and around London and elsewhere as a result of the awarding of contracts, so there are national benefits that provide employment around the country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) asked about airport access and BAA. There are issues there and we are talking to BAA. In fact, I recently wrote to the chief executive to discuss the concerns that BAA had.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned the potential loss of playing fields in his constituency. There will be discussions with the London borough of Havering about how those effects might be mitigated. I understand the environmental issues that he raised that affect his constituents and I am sure that he will petition strongly during the Select Committee process.
	It is important to remind the House of the benefits that Crossrail will bring. I have touched on some briefly but I want to continue to outline some of those that contribute to the Bill's importance. First, Crossrail will support the development of London as a world city and its role as the financial centre of the UK and Europe. Secondly, it will support the economic growth of London and its key regeneration areas by tackling congestion and the lack of capacity on the rail network. Thirdly, it will improve rail access to and across London, reducing existing journey times.
	But Crossrail is a project of national significance.

Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way one more time?

Derek Twigg: No.

Alan Duncan: rose

Derek Twigg: No. I am not giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is becoming clear that the Minister does not intend to give way at the moment.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious point. We are in a very grey area between what the Minister is saying and what the House believes it may be voting on. All I am saying is, may I, through you, invite the Minister to make it absolutely clear that petitions can include Reading, so that there is no doubt in the eyes of tonight's proceedings or potential judicial review about what we are voting for?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making but that is rather more a matter of debate at this stage than a point of order. But perhaps the Minister would like to respond.

Derek Twigg: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made the position very clear. [Hon. Members: No, you have not.] I am not going to go over the ground again. In terms of the transport benefits, Crossrail will enable better access to the capital for the hundreds of thousands of workers who commute into London every day and provide strategic interchanges for local, national and international business and leisure activities. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 394, Noes 24.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CROSSRAIL BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crossrail Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment. [Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

CROSSRAIL BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crossrail Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax and stamp duty reserve tax.[Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

CROSSRAIL BILL [SELECT COMMITTEE]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
	That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of 10 Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
	That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee
	(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 16th September 2005, and
	(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,
	being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
	That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on Petitions against an opposed Private Bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such Petitions as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day on which it will require appearances on those Petitions to be entered.
	That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
	That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
	That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee [Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

CROSSRAIL BILL [INSTRUCTION]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
	That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed
	(a) that the Select Committee, without comment, report to the House for its consideration any issue relating to the environmental impact of the railway transport system for which the Bill provides that is raised in a petition against the Bill, but which the Select Committee is prevented from considering by the practice of the House; and
	(b) that, in applying the practice of the House, the Select Committee treat the principle of the Bill as including
	(i) the termini of the railway transport system for which the Bill provides, and
	(ii) the provision of intermediate stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, the Isle of Dogs and Custom House.[Mr. Darling.]
	The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 114.

Question accordingly agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 20th July, proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may continue for two hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption.[Mr. Coaker.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 10 to 27.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

Companies

That the draft Companies Act 1989 (Delegation) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

Transport

That the draft Railways Act 1993 (Determination of Turnover) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

Civil Contingencies

That the draft Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 14th June 2005, be approved.

Civil Partnership

That the draft Civil Partnership (Contracted-out Occupational and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
	That the draft Civil Partnership (Pensions and Benefit Payments) (Consequential, etc. Provisions) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
	That the draft Civil Partnership (Amendments to Registration Provisions) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

Constitutional Law

That the draft Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
	That the draft Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
	That the draft Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

Income Tax

That the draft Partnerships (Restrictions on Contributions to a Trade) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Pension Protection Fund (Reference of Reviewable Matters to the PPF Ombudsman) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
	That the draft Pension Protection Fund (PPF Ombudsman) Amendment Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
	That the draft Pension Protection Fund (Investigation by PPF Ombudsman of Complaints of Maladministration) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

Water Industry

That the draft Water Act 2003 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
	That the draft Water Supply Licence (Modification of Standard Conditions) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

Legal Services Commission

That the draft Community Legal Service (Scope) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.
	That the draft Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.[Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Access to Justice

That the Revised Funding Code prepared by the Legal Services Commission, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.[Mr. Coaker.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 20 July, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred Divisions)

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Working Conditions on InteroperableCross-Border Rail Services

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6364/05, draft Directive on the agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers assigned to interoperable cross-border services; recognises the importance of the social dialogue process; acknowledges the Government's efforts to secure the application of Better Regulation principles to this proposal; and welcomes the European Commission's declarations on Article 3 of the Directive and on monitoring of the development of the rail sector.[Mr. Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Finances and Services

Ordered,
	That Charlotte Atkins, Sir Stuart Bell, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Crispin Blunt, Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr Frank Doran, Mr Thomas McAvoy, Mr John Randall, Andrew Stunell and Mr Dave Watts be members of the Finance and Services Committee.
	Ordered,

Welsh Affairs

That Mr Stephen Crabb, David T.C. Davies, Dr Hywel Francis, Nia Griffith, Mrs Sin C. James, Mr David Jones, Mr Martyn Jones, Mrs Madeline Moon, Mrs Betty Williams and Mark Williams be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
	Ordered,

Science and Technology

That Adam Afriyie, Mr Robert Flello, Dr Ian Gibson, Dr Evan Harris, Dr Brian Iddon, Margaret Moran, Mr Brooks Newmark, Anne Snelgrove, Bob Spink, Dr Desmond Turner and Mr Phil Willis be members of the Science and Technology Committee.[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House on the future of the Saxaford RAF station in Unst in Shetland? It has been reported to me today that it is the intention of the Ministry of Defence to make a statement on the future of Saxaford on Thursday, which would be the last sitting day of this Session. I am reminded of the comments of Mr. Speaker in relation to the conduct of the Ministry of Defence in dealing with the future of the RAF bases at Lossiemouth and Leuchars. The RAF station at Saxaford has been an integral and valued part of Unst's community for many years. Unst is one of the remotest

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the drift of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I have no knowledge of a Minister coming to make a statement on the matter that he raises, but he has made his point and his comments are firmly on the record.

PETITIONS
	  
	Community Halls

Bob Spink: This petition stems from a general concern across Castle Point about the future of community halls, a concern that I share. I am therefore delighted to present the petition tonight. Residents rightly believe that such halls belong to the people, not to the council. The council simply holds them in trust for the community, and particularly for the vulnerable groups that use them most. The council has a duty to ensure that the halls are kept in a state of good repair and can be used at reasonable cost by the community.
	The petition is promoted by George Hogbin, chairman of the Triangle club, Mr. Evers, Paul Noonan and others. It reflects deeply and widely held concerns about community halls in Castle Point. It states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of Castle Point Triangle Club for blind and partially sighted people and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners are deeply concerned that Castle Point Borough Council is considering closing Swans Green Hall. The Petitioners further declare that the Hall is of great importance to them and to many other user groups.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take steps to ensure that Swans Green Hall and other community halls in Castle Point are kept open and fully available for the groups which use them.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Rhuddlan Borough (Debt)

Chris Ruane: In 1999, as a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I asked the Committee to consider the issue of Rhuddlan borough debta financial scandal in my constituency involving millions of pounds of European funding. The petition relates to that inquiry.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the people of Prestatyn and Meliden and others
	Declares the significance of the work undertaken by the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House of Commons in 1999 on the issue of Rhuddlan Borough debt. The Petitioners further declare that they agree with the conclusion of the report which states that Rhuddlan did not just leave a legacy of debt, but a legacy of innovative developments. It is now up to Denbighshire County Council to promote these projects positively.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Denbighshire County Council to re-open the Ffrith Festival Gardens and fully utilise this public investment in accordance with the wishes of the people of Prestatyn and Meliden.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (MICRO BIKES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Coaker.]

Alison Seabeck: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an issue that seriously concerns many of my constituents, the police and other organisations. The debate is particularly relevant as we approach the school summer holidays.
	What are micro bikes or mini motos? They are smallthe diameter of the tyres is typically between 4 and 6 in. They have two-stroke engines, which means that they are capable of speeds up to 35 mph, although fitting a supercharger allows speeds up to 40 mph. That is much faster than, for example, the speed limit in home zones, which is 20 mph. They can be bought from shops, second hand or on the internet.
	Micro bikes can be used on the road if the driver has the proper equipment and if they are taxed, insured and MOT-ed. I sought clarification, because a number of local people were unclear about that point, and the Department for Transport wrote to me on 15 June:
	It has always been our opinion that vehicles powered by a motor (whether combustion or electric) are mechanically propelled and therefore are defined as motor vehicles . . . This means that, in our opinion, to be used on the road mini motorcycles . . . would be required to meet all the attendant requirements under the Road Traffic Act 1988, such as compliance with stringent construction regulations, registration, road tax, insurance and MOT testing. The rider would be required to hold an appropriate driving licence
	we will return to that point
	and wear a suitable motorcycle helmet.
	That is not happening in Plymouth.
	When parents buy those bikes for their children, I am sure that most of them intend the bikes to be used legally, but unfortunately they are not. A number of parents think that the bikes are toys, but they are toys capable of 40 mph. How are the bikes marketed? In Plymouth, people tell me that retailers are responsible and provide appropriate advice when they sell those machines. At last weekend's successful Plymouth motor show, I overheard a vendor tell a potential customer that the bikes should not be used on the roads, but that advice is either not being listened to or simply being ignored.
	I saw the danger posed by those bikes when I visited a park in Barne Barton in my constituency with Councillor Williams and Councillor Blackburn. It was a lovely sunny April day and the park was full of toddlers, when two mini bikes suddenly raced down the hill and through the park. They were piloted by a 10-year-old and a 14-year-old, who were completely oblivious to the fact that two-year-olds and three-year-olds have no sense of danger and would not leap out of their paths. Parents frantically pulled away their children as the bikes scooted through the park, out of the park, along a public road and back to the top of the park, where two new riders took over and did exactly the same thing.
	The police were called and attended very quickly, but as soon as they arrived, the motor cyclists disappeared. One of the police officers, who was very experienced, said that he is frustrated that he cannot chase those youngsters on to the public road for obvious safety reasonsthe bikes are very small and can barely be seen above a car bonnet, so the danger is all too apparent. To their credit, the police returned to the park later in the day and apprehended one of the bike users, which was a positive outcome.
	The problem is extremely widespread, and I gather from colleagues that they have similar problems. In Ernesettle, I saw a father and son on public land. The son, who was six or seven years old, was admittedly fully kitted out with helmet and leathers and riding on the grass, but the father had none of those thingshe had bare legs, nothing on his head, and a bike without a registration plate, and was on the public road riding alongside the child. They left as I approached.
	The problem gets worse in woodland areas such as Whitleigh and Ham woods, where it starts to approach serious antisocial behaviour whereby local residents are being harassed and threatened by people using these small bikes. I shall read from a letter that was sent to me by someone who lives in the Whitleigh woods area and wrote anonymously because they were afraid of reprisals. They say:
	There is no pleasure in walking through the woods or sitting or working in the garden anymore. In fact I dread any nice weather. To invite friends round for a barbecue is totally out of the question as the motorcyclists can descend at any time and I get so frustrated and angry that there is no point in arranging anything.
	The writer goes on:
	I have tried to speak to these youngsters to appeal to their good nature but they will not even speak to me but race off.
	That person says that their life is being made an absolute misery. Sadly, that letter is not uniqueI have had letters, phone calls and petitions on the same subject.
	What should be done? There are several areas of possible action, and perhaps information that could be beefed up, and I should like the Minister to consider them. I admit that some may require interdepartmental discussions. First, although it is probably too late now, there should be an information campaign in schools, perhaps with posters. In areas where there are particular problems, letters should go home to parents explaining exactly who can use these bikes, how they should be used, and where they can be used legally, as well as the penalties for breaking the law, which can be quite severe.
	Secondly, when the law is broken and the culprit is caught and convicted, of course the penalty should be paid. However, the courts need to be clear about the status of these bikes. Anecdotally, there are comments that some magistrates see them as being in a different category from full-size bikes, yet they are just as dangerous and potentially lethal. The police already have powers to confiscate them, and there is a view locally that if they have been used illegally, they should not only be confiscated but crushed and taken out of the market so that the young people who are buying them might begin to focus on just how serious offence they may have committed.

Geoffrey Robinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. The citizens of Coventry share many of the frustrations and inconveniences of those of Plymouth. Does she agree, and can the Minister confirm, that the police do have powers to impound bikes if fines, which can be 200, 120, 80 and 15 per day, are not paid within seven days? The bikes are being responsibly retailed, but police and magistrates are too unsure of their powers to give effect to them.

Alison Seabeck: I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing the points that I have made. I wholly agree with him.
	We have new legislation that relates specifically to antisocial behaviour and gives the police new powers in other areas over and above those specific to these machines, but they seem mainly to deal with larger groups of youths, and the bikes are often used singly or in pairs. Could riders be the subject of on-the-spot fines for using them in an antisocial, if not an illegal way? I welcome the powers that allow the police to establish dispersal zones. It may be possible for the woodlands area to become a dispersal zone but if that happened, could the behaviour within it be proscribed? Could the use of motor bikes in that area be specified or would innocent young people, who might be gathering in the woods for harmless purposes, be caught? That is the last thing I want. I would therefore welcome clarification on that.
	Thirdly, I have seen no registration numbers on the bikes. I assume that, if they are to be used on public roads, they should be registered. To be honest, I have doubts about whether they should be allowed on public roads because they are invisible to most car users. I would therefore welcome it if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary discussed with his colleagues in the Department for Transport whether we could realistically consider banning them from public roads.

Si�n Simon: My roving advice bureau on the roads around Woolmore road in Erdington on Friday was dominated partly by the complaints of householders about the bikes and partly by the noise of the bikes themselves. I have serious doubts about whether they can be used safely and reasonably anywhere. They are a menace, they make an appalling noise and they must be dangerous. The message has to go to the police, local authorities and parents to use all their powers fully to clamp down on them.

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend's description exactly applies to my local area.
	My fourth point is about adverts and whether those placed in local papers and on the internet can be controlled. To give only one example, Shop.Com advertises the machines under the heading Boys Stuff. The opening paragraph states:
	Experience the rush of motorbike racing in the park or the garden, with no licence required!
	That encourages illegal behaviour effortlessly. I do not know how many people have gardens that are large enough for riders to achieve a speed of 35 mph but there are not many in my part of Plymouth. Simply to excite people, the advert continues:
	Serious thrillseekers and hedonists should waste no time in climbing aboard one of these.
	It tells people that they can achieve
	amazing speeds of approximately 37 mph, which feels mindblowing when you're a matter of inches from the ground.
	It may well be mind-blowing but the thought of a child going at such a speed is terrifying.
	At the very end, the advert states that it is illegal to use the bikes on the public highway but only after it has stimulated people, misled them and encouraged illegal behaviour. I would therefore like measures to ensure that, wherever the bikes are soldin shops, second hand or on the internetthey are accompanied by a clear health warning about how and where they should be used.
	Fifthly, will the Home Office please discuss with other Departments the way in which we can encourage the establishment of areas for safe, off-road use of the bikes? I have evidence from around the country of police forcesto their credit, it is largely police forceswho are trying to find venues for off-roading. The police in Plymouth are trying but the site that they found was opposed by residents on the ground of noise, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) highlighted earlier. In Torbay, PC Chris Lancaster is fighting for the young people in his area and thinks that he has found a venue. In Portsmouth, PC Andy Burnham, who is no relation to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)I do not believe that he has a second careeris trying to set up a summer scheme, which provides helmets and a safe venue where young people can enjoy the micro and mini moto bikes. I am sure that, when used properly, they are great fun and we do not want to spoil anybody's fun.
	As the summer holidays approach, I want to put on record my genuine anxiety that some extremely serious accidents could happen. The use of the bikes has increased significantly and there is a lack of public and especially parental awareness about how they should be used legally.
	As a parent, I have to say that the thought of a 10-year-old going through a public park at 35 mph with no safety equipment is shocking and frightening. I hope that the Home Office will do all that it can through its agencies to distribute information, as well as considering how we can clamp down on the illegal use of these machines without spoiling the fun of the genuine rider.

Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) on securing this debate. This is certainly one of the biggest issues in my constituency, and every other Member I have spoken to has said that it is an issue on their patch as well.
	I should like to quote from a response that I received to a complaint that I raised with a local police inspector. He wrote back to say that the problem was
	a growing menace across the whole of Bristol,
	not just in my area. I shall give just one example from my patch. I was visited at my surgery a couple of weeks ago by residents living close to the Dundridge Farm playing fields in St. George in my constituency, where motor cyclists cause a nuisance in the fields, disturbing the peace of children playing there and of people walking their dogs. They also exit the field at speeds of up to 35 mph, racing across the pavement into the road, nearly knocking down pedestrians in the process and sometimes going into the path of passing cars. It is only a matter of time before a serious accident occurs. Indeed, in Warmley, not far from my constituency, at the end of June a six-year-old boy was knocked down by a mini-motor bike driven by a 16-year-old who rode off, leaving the little boy covered in blood.
	I am pleased that the police in my constituency have assured me that they are taking the issue very seriously, and that they are using their powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize bikes that are being used in an antisocial manner. They also hope to make an early example of a few offenders, so that we can mount a publicity campaign. They have told me that they want to see this issue on the front page of the Bristol Evening Post, so that they can get the message across that the activity is not only illegal in some cases but incredibly dangerous. I want to do all that I can to support them in that.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) concluded her remarks by saying that she wanted to place her concerns clearly and firmly on record. She has done that this evening, and I congratulate her on securing this important debate and on raising these issues.
	It is clear that problems associated with mini motos are on the increase, and it was made clear by the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) that these issues are also a matter of concern for their constituents. There is a range of powers that can be used to deal with the illegal use of these vehicles, especially when they are being used in an antisocial manner. However, it is clear that these powers need to be used with some urgency in some of the areas that have been mentioned.
	It might be helpful if I say a little more about the type of vehicle and bike to which we are referring in this debate. The term mini motos covers both petrol-driven mini-motor bikes, which are fast vehicles, as well as the slower go-peds, which is the common name for electric and petrol-driven scooters. Quad bikes are sometimes classed as mini motos, but there is a fundamental difference between them, which I will explain in a little more detail later in my speech.
	Petrol-driven mini-motor bikes are small bikes that replicate racing bikes and off-road scrambler bikes. They stand only 23 in high, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport clearly illustrated the problems that that can cause. They have an engine size of about 50 cc, and some can travel at speeds up to 60 mph, which I know will be of concern to my hon. Friend. They can cost up to 500. Go-peds look similar to the old fashioned push-scooters that you and I might remember pushing around in our younger days, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but they have an engine block around the back wheel, and can travel at speeds around 20 mph. They can cost up to 1,000. However, there are now lower-cost models on sale for around 100, and there is a growing second-hand market in all types of mini motos.
	The term mini moto and the problems associated with their irresponsible use are relatively new phenomena. It is probably fair to say that many members of the public, particularly parents, are generally unaware of the health and safety implications of these bikes, or of the legislation governing their use. These vehicles are being sold without any age restrictions and are becoming increasingly popular among young people. Prices continue to fall and the number of retailers selling them has also increased. Currently, the majority of such vehicles are bought over the internet, through mail order and from specialist shops, but some high street stores are beginning to sell lower-priced, lower-speed models.
	There is a growing sport around mini motos, but in many instances, as my hon. Friends have described, they are being used illegally. Information on the number of incidents associated with mini motos is not collected centrally by the Government, but the Home Office has received some general information on their misuse, which suggests that the problem is increasingly widespread. Colleagues in the Department for Transport are also concerned about the implications for road safety, because the majority of users are riding illegally on roads and pavements without any safety equipment. Mini motos are sold as toys and are not manufactured, licensed, taxed or insured to be ridden on a road.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) on securing this debate, on a subject that is a huge problem in Wellingborough. I will be brief. As such vehicles should not be used on the roads, is such use to be made clearly illegal? There seem to be some doubts within the police on this issue.

Paul Goggins: I was about to clarify that point. The advice given to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport by the Department for Transport is accurate. It is possible for a mini moto to be ridden legally on a road, but for that to happen it would have to meet certain construction standards, such as the requirements demanded by European directive 2002/24/EC. It would be prohibitively expensive to convert such a vehicle to that standard. Quad bikes, however, are built to that standard, so it is possible for them to be properly licensed and used on the road. By and large, however, mini motos are bought, sold and used as toys, and are not built to the standard that would allow them to be taxed, licensed and used on the roads.
	As far as the Department for Transport is concerned, there are no age restrictions on the purchase of any motor vehicle. The restrictions are placed instead on how and where vehicles can be used. Let me make it absolutely clear, bearing in mind that mini motos are unlikely to be used legally on the roads due to the excessive cost of conversion and raising the standards as I have described, that the only place where they could be used legally is on private land and with the owner's consent, which in many instances, particularly in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, would be land owned by the local authority. Steps could be taken by retailers, for example, who could make information much more readily available when the bikes are purchased about the legal position on the use and requirements of mini motos. While many such vehicles are purchased by adults who then give them to their children as gifts, the relevant Departments will examine the possibility of encouraging retailers to do more about this issue.
	The most commonly used legal power for dealing with mini motos is under the Police Reform Act 2002. It allows a constable in uniform, after giving a warning to the rider, to stop and seize a motor vehicle if he or she has grounds for believing that it is being used in a careless and inconsiderate manner, that it is being used illegally off-road, or that it is being used, or is likely to be used, in an antisocial manner, causing harassment, alarm or distress. If the police confiscate vehicles using that power before the owner can take back the vehicle, a release fee of around 120 must be paid. Information coming back to the Home Office suggests that that is proving to be a successful tool for dealing with misuse, notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West.

Geoffrey Robinson: Precisely on that point, will the Minister confirm that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agencywhich I know is not his immediate department responsibility, but there must be liaison between the two Departmentshas taken legal advice, and that because such vehicles have no tax, they categorically cannot be driven on roads, and the police therefore have absolute authority to impound them and apply the fines? Whatever we do to encourage more responsible marketing and retailing, we cannot inhibit the internet trade. The only effective measure is therefore to make defying the law prohibitively expensive. Will he clarify that?

Paul Goggins: I can certainly confirm that to be used legally on the road, such a vehicle would have to meet a high standard. It would be prohibitively expensive to convert one for the purpose. It is clear that people do not buy these vehicles intending to use them legally on the road.

Geoffrey Robinson: What about the tax?

Paul Goggins: The question generally does not arise, for the reasons that I have given. It is clear, however, that when the vehicles are used illegally they can be impounded. The release fee has to be paid, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport suggested earlier, if it is not paid, the vehicle can be crushed.
	When one of these vehicles is ridden on the pavement, the police can treat that as an offence under the Highways Act 1835. The maximum penalty is 500. When the rider is a child, the police may choose instead to warn him and advise his parents as necessary. The police also have powers of arrest when there are reasonable grounds for believing that such action is necessary to prevent the rider of the mini moto, or motor cyclist, from causing physical injury to himself or to any other person.
	When someone commits a driving offence but does not hold a current driving licence, for example by virtue of his or her age, a court can still order the endorsement of the offender's licence. The offender may not have a licence, but when he or she applies for one, the endorsement will automatically feature on it.
	Local authorities also have powers to manage such problems. They can make byelaws under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, prohibiting the use of mini motos, or any other vehicle for that matter, in particular areas. While byelaws cannot duplicate general legislation, they can be used to prohibit the use of mini motos in shopping-centre car parks, pedestrianised areas and the like. Furthermore, local authorities are required under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take reasonable steps to check their areas periodically for existing and potential statutory nuisances. My hon. Friend mentioned the noise made by some vehicles. If they are causing excessive noise, a local authority can serve a noise abatement notice and can seize the vehicle that is causing the nuisance. If a person uses mini motos repeatedly and causes excessive nuisance in the community, the local authority can apply for an antisocial behaviour order to prohibit him or her from using them.
	I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that last week, in response to the increase in problems associated with mini moto misuse, officials from the antisocial behaviour unit at the Home Office held an action day on the issue. It was attended by more than 100 staff from all over the country, bringing together local authorities, police and others to share ideas and good practice. The purpose was to encourage staff to take action against the misuse of mini motos, and attention was drawn to a number of specific interventions.
	It is important for us to do all that we can to raise awareness of the issues, as my hon. Friend has been able to do this evening. She made some very sensible suggestions about the use of leaflets, campaigning materials and information that can heighten awareness among members of the public who may not appreciate the dangers and the legal position. I want to encourage local authorities to work with trading standards authorities, and to ensure that local retailers are acting responsibly. That may involve the production of appropriate leaflets that retailers can distribute when vehicles are sold.
	It is worth engaging the support of local petrol stations, especially in areas where misuse is recognised as a problem, to ensure that petrol is not sold to anyone under 16. If under-age sales are suspected, trading standards authorities can carry out test purchasing, which may result in the removal of a licence to sell petrol. Local authorities and police can also use their reporting systems to gather intelligence if they have antisocial behaviour hotlines, or information provided through neighbourhood and community wardens. That information can be used to target problem areas with high-visibility patrols or leaflet drops.
	Local authorities can also help to discourage misuse by making physical improvements to public areas. My hon. Friend suggested designating certain areas safe for the use of mini motos, and I think that that would be a good idea.
	There is a great deal of work going on. If more action days are required, the Home Office will be happy to sponsor them, but I think my hon. Friend has done a service to the House and her constituents tonight. I assure her that we will keep a close eye on what happens. I hope that in the coming months we shall see a far more responsible approach
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.